Preamble

The House met at Eleven of the. Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

Oral Answers to Questions — SAFEGUARDING OF INDUSTRIES.

RETAIL PRICES.

l. Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the committees appointed under the Safeguarding of Industries procedure

Committee.

 Hours occupied by Hearing.
Witnesses heard.



In Public.
In Private.
In Public.
In Private.


Lace and Embroidery
…
30
—
24
—


Superphosphate
…
16
4
l6
4


Gloves
…
48
4
36
4


Gas Mantles
…
17
6
14
9


Paper
…
48
—
31
—


Aluminium Hollow-ware
…
19
4
4
5


Brooms and Brushes
…
52
11
43
8


Cutlery
…
39
9
18
5


Total
…
269
38
186
 35

The figures of hours are approximate and exclude time spent in preliminary meetings and in considering the report. In some cases the same witnesses were heard both in public and in private.

SEAMEN (REPARATION CLAIMS).

Captain BENN: 3.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if (he will state what action, if any, His Majesty's Government is taking with a view to getting a decision hastened on seamen's reparation claims now in negotiation with the German Government; and whether, if a satisfactory settlement cannot be arrived at in this way, he will

are required to take into account the effect of the duty upon the retail price of the article?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): ; No. Sir.

COMMITTEES (SITTINGS AND EVIDENCE).

Captain BENN: 2.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he can state for each of the safeguarding committees for how many hours it has sat in public and for how many hours in private; and how many witnesses have been examined in public and how many in private?

Sir P. CUNLIFFK-LISTER: As the reply includes a number of figures, with the hon. and gallant Member's permission, I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

The particulars applied are at follow:

consider other means of compensating these seamen, in view of the fact that the owners of the ships concerned have already received reparation?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The answer is rather long, and includes a, table of figures. I would propose, therefore, if the hon. and gallant Member does not object, to have it circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Captain BENN: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any assurance that the claims of these men will be sympathetically considered, and is he aware that many of them are in great financial difficulty?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: If the hon. and gallant Member will refer to the previous answers on the subject, he will see that a special arrangement was made some time ago with the German Government which is now Toeing carried out, and it is much more satisfactory than before.

Captain BENN: Is it not a fact that some parts of the large sums voted by this House are still unexpended, and apparently are to be repaid to the Treasury?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The hon and gallant Member is wrong. What he is asking about are reparation claims now in negotiation with the German Government. The other is a matter of Treasury grants, which is quite a different form of payment.

Following it the reply to the Question on the Paper:

The hon. and gallant Member no doubt refers in the first part of his question to claims lodged by seamen with the Clearing Office under Clause 4 of the Annex to Section IV of Part, X of the Treaty of Versailles in respect of pre-War detention. A large proportion of those claims have now been settled under the Agreement concluded with the German Authorities in May last, and fresh settlements are being reached every day. Details are given in the following statement.

Cases.


Total claims lodged by seamen under Clause 4
…

 926


Total claims settled to date
…
322
409


Total claims rejected to date
…
87


Balance still outstanding
…

517


Out of this balance of 517, offers have already been made by the German Authorities in
…

405


The position in respect of these 405 offers is as follows:—


Accepted by claimants and awaiting formal confirmation
…
97



Communicated to claimants and awaiting their reply
…
176



Still under discussion between Clearing Office and German Authorities
…
132



No offers have yet been made by the German Authorities in
…

112





517

The claims of the shipowners in respect of damage to their property fall under
different provisions of the Treaty from those covering the claims referred to above, and different principles are involved. In this connection I would refer to my reply to the hon. and gallant Member on 24th November, a copy of which I am sending him.

SHIPS' WIRELESS OPERATORS (WAGES DISPUTE).

Mr. AMMON: 4.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what companies have permitted their ships to proceed to sea without wireless operators; and how many of such ships are passenger ships?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Since 26th November, about 500 ships have sailed without operators, and of these 47 were passenger ships. I do not think any useful purpose would be served by publishing a list of the ships or their owners.

Mr. AMMON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say if negotiations are proceeding?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I am afraid that is a question which the right hon. Gentleman must address to the Minister of Labour, who has been in touch with the situation throughout.

Mr. AMMON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether any progress was made yesterday?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I am very sorry, but I have not seen the Minister of Labour to-day. My right hon. Friend will probably be able to see him during the course of this sitting.

Mr. LANSBURY: Who will be responsible for the death of any passenger that may take place through the lack of wireless owing to the action of the Government in this matter?

Mr. AMMON: 5.
asked the President of the Board of Trade under what authority and conditions has he given permission for ships to proceed to sea without operators during the present dispute?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: As has been stated in previous replies to questions on this matter, the Statute under which ships are required to be fitted with wireless telegraphy apparatus and to carry wireless operators is the Merchant
Shipping (Wireless Telegraphy) Act, 1919. Under that Act, if there be a failure to comply with the law, the owner or master of a ship may be prosecuted, and the ship may be detained.
The Board of Trade, after careful consideration, came to the conclusion that where compliance with the law is rendered impossible by operators declining to sail owing to a strike, and by this alone, it would be unreasonable to prosecute masters or owners, and they did not think that they would be justified in taking the very serious step of detaining the ships. In so doing the Board followed the precedent of the action taken in the two previous strikes.

Mr. AMMON: Is not the action of the Ministry taking part on one side of the strike against the other side?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Certainly not; it is maintaining complete impartiality. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO!"] Supposing the Board of Trade said that no ship was to sail without a wireless operator, it would obviously be compelling every shipowner to accept the terms of the men, and that, whatever be the merits of the dispute, would unquestionably be taking sides in the dispute.

Mr. AMMON: Is it not a fact that some of the ships are sailing with operators, and paying the terms demanded?

Vice-Admiral Sir REGINALD HALL: Have there been any representations from passengers who are reluctant to take passages in passenger ships without operators?

Mr. THURTLE: Can the right hon. Gentleman differentiate between complete and partial impartiality?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Yes, I can, and that is why my impartiality in this matter is complete. In reply to the supplementary question by my hon. and gallant Friend, I have not received any representation from passengers who are reluctant to take passages.

Mr. KENNEDY: Is not this dispute in effect a lock-out by the shipowners, to enable them to avoid the expense of carrying wireless operators?

Mr. AMMON: Is it not a fact that a large number of companies are carrying operators on the terms demanded by the strikers?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I understand that some companies are paying the higher rates of wages, but obviously to answer the question put in the previous supplementary question is exactly the kind of question which I ought not to be asked to answer.

Mr. LANSBURY: Why not?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Because I wish to be impartial.

Mr. AMMON: 20.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he has considered the. facts of the dispute between the wireless companies and the wireless operators; and, in view of the tact that the position has now developed so as to constitute a public danger, will he order an inquiry?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Arthur Steel-Maitland): At a meeting at the Ministry of Labour yesterday arrangements were made for a conference of the two sides to take place this afternoon.

MOTOR COACH ACCIDENT, FENNY STRATFORD.

Colonel DAY: 10.
asked the Minister of Transport, whether, following the fatal motor coach accident at Fenny Stratford level crossing, he ,will, in view of the increasing amount of load traffic, consider action with a view to the abolition of level crossings?

Major Sir HARRY BARNSTON (for Colonel ASHLEY): I have been asked to reply. My right hon. Friend would prefer not to make any statement with regard to the lamentable disaster at the Fenny Stratford level crossing, pending the result of the inquiries which are being held in the matter. On the general question of the elimination of level crossings, my right hon. Friend would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the answer which was given on the 10th February to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for the Acton Division, of which my right hon. Friend is sending him a copy.

Colonel DAY: Would it not be possible for the Minister to recommend that a tunnel should be made underneath this level crossing?

Major BARNSTON: I will make that representation to the Minister.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE.

ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT.

. Mr. CAMPBELL: 11.
asked the Postmaster-General the number of staff employed in the Engineering Department in 1917 and in 1925–26; and the cost in eachcase?

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir William Mitchell-Thomson): The staff in 1017 numbered 24,910 (including men on service), and cost approximately £2,600,000; the staff in 1925–26 numbers 33,590, and is expected to cost about £6,400,000.

Colonel APPLIN: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it would not be possible to recruit this very large staff by making some arrangement by which districts could be worked together?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: All such questions are constantly under consideration.

LONDON SERVICE.

Mr. CAMPBELL: 12.
asked the Postmaster-General the number of staff employed to-day in the General Post Office, London, and its cost; and if he hopes to reduce the same in the coming year?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The staff of the London Postal Service numbers 31,743 and costs £6,730,000. The rest of the Post Office staff in London (excluding the engineering staff) numbers 26,214 and costs £5,280,000. It is improbable that there will be a reduction in the coming year, unless there is an unexpected and regrettable decline in Post Office business.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir JOSEPH NALL: Do these figures relate to the whole of the headquarters of the Post Office or to the London Postal Service?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The first relate to the London Postal Service and the second to the rest of the Post Office staff in London.

Mr. AMMON: Is it not a fact that there has been a great increase in the work of the Post Office, owing to new social services?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Certainly.

CHINA.

Colonel DAY: 16.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what, if any, action has been taken following the holding up of an international train, containing British subjects, during a battle at Yangtsun on 11th December?

The UNDERSECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Godfrey Locker-Lampson): On the 15th December the Ministers representing the principal Treaty Powers signatory of the 1901 Protocol presented a joint note to the Chinese Government protesting against the interruption of communications between Peking and Tientsin. On the 19th December the Diplomatic Body decided to make further representatives.

BRITISH EMBASSY, TURKEY.

Sir FREDRIC WISE: 17.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will consider removing our Ambassador and representatives in Constantinople to Angora?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: No, Sir. In the present circumstances it would be inopportune to remove His Majesty's Embassy from Constantinople to Angora, where general conditions are not yet adequate either as regards housing or other requirements. On the other hand, His Majesty's Ambassador has in the course of this year himself paid several visits to Angora and members of hie staff have been there on frequent occasions. There is no reason to suppose that the present arrangements impair the usefulness of His Majesty's Ambassador at Constantinople.

Sir F. WISE: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether there is a representative at Angora?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I do not think so, but perhaps my hon. Friend will give me notice of that question.

Mr. STEPHEN: Seeing that one of the chief difficulties in connection with the change is providing a house for the Ambassador, could not the hon. Gentleman arrange to have one of the Weir houses?

Captain BENN: When was it contemplated that the British representative should move to the centre of Turkish government?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: The Government are fully alive to the importance of this question, and are keeping their eye upon it.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH (OVERTIME).

Mr. THURTLE: 19.
asked the Minister of Health why he cannot employ a certain number of experienced unemployed women in the women's branches instead of compelling the permanent staff to work overtime; and why, as he has been able to make arrangements to re-absorb staff on the men's side, he cannot also do this on the women's side?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): I would refer to the answer given to the hon. Member for Wandsworth on the 23rd ultimo, and to the hon. Member for Guildford (Sir H. Buckingham), on the 14th instant.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA.

DISARMAMENT CONFERENCE.

Mr. DUNNICO: 22.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the Government's avowed policy of the pacification of Europe, he contemplates taking any steps with a view to reaching a settlement of such issues as prevent full co-operation between His Majesty's Government and that of Russia?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given on the 9th December to the Hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Taylor).

Captain BENN: Do not the Government consider that this reported statement of Mr. Rykof is of great importance, and worth examining in the hope of securing disarmament?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I stated yesterday that the Soviet Government has been invited by the League of Nations to attend the Conference on Disarmament.

BRITISH-RUSSIAN TREATY.

Mr. DUNNICO: 23.
asked the Prime Minister whether the British Foreign Office has at any time informed the Government of Russia what are the provisions of the British-Russian Treaty of last year to which His Majesty's Government take exception?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Brightside (Mr. Ponsonby) on the 18th March last.

Mr. THURTLE: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the Government object to any other provisions of the projected treaty with Russia except that; relating to the guaranteed loan?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I do not think I can add anything to the reply given the other day. The treaty was rejected as a whole.

TREATY OF LAUSANNE.

Sir F. WISE: 24.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if Turkey and the detached States are keeping their financial obligations of the Treaty of Lausanne?

Mr. LOCKER- LAMPSON: Under the financial clauses of the Treaty of Lausanne, Turkey and the detached territories are under an obligation to participate in the annual charges for the service of the Ottoman Public Debt. I understand that up to the present Palestine is the only one of the States which has made any payment to the Ottoma Debt Council on this account.

UNITED STATES (BRITISH DEBT).

Sir F. WISE: 25.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the amount in sterling of the external payment to the United States on account of debt on 15th December and 15th June. 1925?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Ronald McNeill): The figures are as follow:





£


15th December, 1925:


Principal
…
…
4,953,566


Interest
…
…
14,099,088


Total
…
…
£19,052,654


15th June, 1925, Interest, £14,215,554.

YPRES FILM.

Mr. J. BECKETT: 8.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether any facilities were given or troops lent for the production of the film Ypres; and, if so, what nature these facilities took and the number of troops provided?

The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Sir Laming Worthington-Evans): Troops to the number of about 820 all ranks took part in scenes for the Ypres film, under the conditions which are explained in the answer to the question of the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut. -Commander Kenworthy). For the purposes of this film, the company was also supplied with some articles of military equipment and stores on repayment, and was allowed to take a picture of the normal military life at one of the principal stations.

Mr. BECKETT: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us any idea of the total cost?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: It cost nothing so far as public funds are concerned.

Mr. W. THORNE: Are the soldiers in question getting any commission?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The company taking the films were required to pay the commanding officers for distribution among the men at least as much as would have been paid to civilians had civilians appeared in the films.

Mr. THURTLE: Would the right hon. Gentleman say what advantage the War Office expects to derive from lending troops for this purpose?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: It is desirable that the public should be allowed to see films of military life, and, if that be desirable, we think it better
that the soldiers themselves should take part in the films.

Colonel DAY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this company obtains a very large rental from these films, and that the War Office are doing away with a substantial asset?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: No, Sir.

Mr. W. THORNE: May I ask whether the officers belonging to the regiments get the bulk of the money or the rank and file of the soldiers?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: No; it is all distributed among the rank and file.

Colonel DAY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the usual fee is two guineas a day for people engaged in these films, and did the soldiers receive that money?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: No; I think that depends upon the part taken.

DISARMAMENT (PREPARATORY COMMISSION).

Mr. PONSONBY: (by Private Notice)
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give this House, before it rises, any information with regard to the proceedings of the Preparatory Commission on Disarmament recently convened by the League of Nations at Geneva?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: The Council of the League of Nations, which has been considering at Geneva the reduction of armaments, has invited the following member States: Bulgaria, Finland, Netherlands, Jugo-Slavia, Poland, Rou-mania; and the following non-member States: Germany, Russia and the United States of America, to participate in the work of the Preparatory Commission for the Conference on Disarmament, which is to meet at Geneva on the 15th February. The above invitations were accompanied by a programme based on proposals put forward by His Majesty's Government and the French Government, and certain suggestions of the Spanish Government. The Preparatory Commission is to inquire into the basis of a Conference on Disarmament. It is not to lay down an actual scheme of disarmament, which will be the duty of the Conference, but rather
to investigate the principle on which such a conference can be held.

Mr. PONSONBY: Has any date been fixed for a further sitting of the Commission?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I do not know that it has. I will let the hon. Member know.

Mr. THURTLE: Could the hon. Gentleman say what is the nature of the proposals submitted by His Majesty's Government and the French Government?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: No, I cannot.

Mr. J. HUDSON: Can the hon. Gentleman say when a scheme with regard to disarmament will be submitted for the. consideration of the Commission?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: No, I am afraid I cannot.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. ARTHUR HENDERSON: Would the Prime Minister inform the House how far the Government intend to go with the different Orders on the Paper?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): I propose to ask the House to take the first five Orders, that is to say, the consideration of the Lords Amendments to the Rating and Valuation Bill, the Criminal Justice Bill, the Tithe Bill and the Sandwich Port and Haven Bill, as also the other stages of the Mines (Working Facilities and Support) Bill.I
I understand it has been suggested that it might be possible to make such progress with the business that the Prorogation might be taken this evening at about Six o'Clock. If that be so, I am sure it would be for the convenience of the House to know at this stage-and if my right hon. Friend, on behalf of the Opposition, could assure me that that is so-I would propose not to move the two Motions which stand in my name.

Mr. HENDERSON: As far as we on these benches are concerned, we are quite prepared to fall in with the arrangement that would permit the Prorogation to take place at some time round about Six o'Clock. We only want to raise questions on those Amendments that have come from the other House which have substance in them. We do not want to enter into unnecessary discussion.

Captain BENN: We are quite agree able.

Orders of the Day — RATING AND VALUATION BILL

Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [21st December], "That the Lords Amendments be now considered."

Question again proposed.

Mr. W. THORNE: I should like to ask your ruling, Mr. Speaker, on these Amendments which have been sent from the other House. You will see that there is an Amendment to Clause 4, to leave out Sub-section (4) and to insert instead a new Sub-section containing four new paragraphs. I should like to ask you whether the Lords are not exceeding their powers in suggesting what is practically a new Sub-section in this particular Clause?

Mr. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member will allow me, I will deal with that Amendment when we reach it.

Mr. THORNE: Thank you.

Question, "That the Lords Amendments be now considered," put, and agreed to.

Lords Amendments considered accordingly.

CLAUSE 1.—(Rating authorities.)

Lords Amendment: In page 2, line 14, leave out the words "rating area being a rural district," and insert "rural rating area."

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Neville Chamberlain): I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
In view of what has just been said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Burnley (Mr. A, Henderson), I do not propose to make any explanation of Amendments which are really purely drafting or consequential, unless anybody should desire me to do so. I will merely state that they are drafting Amendments. This one is a drafting Amendment.

Question put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 2.—(Levy of, and provisions as to, general rate.)

Lords Amendments down to page 3, line 13, agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 3, line 20. leave out paragraph (b).

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

Mr. ARTHUR GREENWOOD: Might we have an explanation of this Amendment? I am not quite certain as to what its effect will be. Paragraph (b) states:
The provisions of Section eleven of the Poor Relief Act, 1814, shall not apply.
If these words be taken out, and if similar words to those of the latter part of the paragraph, namely,
A rating authority shall have power to reduce or remit the payment of any general rate on account of the poverty of any person liable to the payment thereof,
be put in at the end, as proposed in the next Lords Amendment, it seems to me that there is going to be a substantial alteration in the Bill, because, as I understand it, Section 11 of the Poor Relief Act gives to Justices the power to relieve persons from rates, and I understand that now that power would go. I may be wrong.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Gentleman is quite right, but it will be seen that the Poor Relief Act. 1814, is repealed under the Eighth Schedule of the Bill, and, therefore, the words which it is proposed to leave out are unnecessary.

Question, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment," put, and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments down to page 6, line 6, agreed to.

CLAUSE 4. (Operation and incidence of rate.)

Lords Amendment: In page 6, line 13, leave out Sub-section (4) and insert
(4) The following provisions shall have effect with respect to the assessing of persons to and their liability in respect of a rate—

(a) a person who is in occupation of the hereditament for part only of the period in respect of which the rate is made, shall, subject to the provisions of this Sub-section, be liable to be charged with such part only of the total amount of the rate as the number of days during which he is in occupation boars to the total number of days comprised in the said period:
2195
(b)a person who is in occupation of the hereditament for any part of the said period may be assessed to the rate in accordance with the provisions of paragraph (a) of this Sub-section, notwithstanding that he ceased to he in occupation before the rate was made;
(c)a person who is in occupation of the hereditament at any time after the rate is made may be assessed to and shall in the first instance be liable to pay if he was in occupation at the beginning of the period the whole rate, or if he came into occupation subsequently a proportion of the rate calculated on the basis that he will remain in occupation until the end of the said period, but shall, if he goes out of occupation before the end of the said period, be entitled to recover from the rating authority any sum paid by him in excess of the amount properly chargeable against him in accordance with the provisions of paragraph (a) of this Sub-section, except in so far as he has previously recovered the sum from an incoming occupier."

Mr. W. THORNE: I should like now to have your ruling on these proposed new paragraphs, because, it appears to me that here the Lords have exceeded their power.

Mr. SPEAKER: I think not, I have examined the precedents very carefully in relation to this Bill, and I find that, from the time of Speaker Abereromby onwards, it. has been held that, where legislation dealt with rating and valuation, this House could not insist on a rigid interpretation of its privilege. Therefore, this is not one of the Amendments to which I propose to call the attention of the House. There is one further on which would make a substantial change, and in that case I shall draw the attention of the House to the Amendment as a matter of privilege.

Mr. THORNE: I understand it is not a question of money one way or the other. Is that the reason you do not propose to take any action in the matter?

Mr. SPEAKER: I think it is one of those matters in which, for nearly 100 years, the House has not taken a rigid interpretation of its privileges, and I propose to follow precedent.

Mr. MARCH: By leaving out Subsection (4), are we not leaving out a money transaction?. It seems to me to he upsetting the whole position of affairs to take it out entirely, and to substitute these other provisions which are recommended from the other House.

Mr. SPEAKER: I think that is a matter for the House to deal with on its merits. The Minister, no doubt, will explain the Amendment in moving whatever he has to move

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This is really a drafting Amendment only. There is practically no change in the (substance, but there is a rearrangement of wording. May I read what was said by Lord Parmoor, who has some knowledge of drafting, and is a member of the hon. Member's own party?
I have studied the new drafting very carefully. It deals with a complicated subject, and I agree that the new drafting is very much better than the original Subsection. Therefore I think the noble Marquess is quite justified in moving the Amendment.
I think that should satisfy hon. Members that there is nothing sinister about this rearrangement.

Question put, and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments down to page 8, line 10, agreed to.

CLAUSE 7.—(Demand notes for rates.)

Lords Amendment: In page 8, line 22, leave out paragraph (g).

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): I beg to move, " That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

Mr. ATTLEE: I want to oppose the House agreeing with the Lords Amendment. It is worth while examining actually what the paragraph did and why it is being taken out. As it originally stood, it provided that in the rate demand note there should be inserted the amount in the £ intended to make good any deficiency in any trading account. As far as I can see this was inserted by persons who are violently opposed to municipal trading in order that they might get as much as possible advertisement of the fact that in certain cases municipal trading had caused a loss. When this matter was in Committee I moved that it should also show where the rates have been relieved by an amount transferred to the rates from the profits of municipal trading. and the Minister naturally, as a man of very great ex-
perience in successful municipal trading, and also possessing a sense of justice, accepted my Amendment in a slightly different form, and accordingly the rate demand note has now to show both where there is any loss caused and where there has been a profit which has inured to the benefit of the ratepayers.
Of course, anyone who really understands anything about municipal trading knows that the vast majority of the cases show a profit, and therefore what happened really was that this paragraph, originally put in as an advertisement against municipal trading, was now going to be an extraordinarily good advertisement of the efficiency of municipal trading, and so one is not surprised to find that some people got a little excited over it, and it is quite characteristic that in the other place it should have been Lord Banbury who moved to make the best of a bad job and to strike out this paragraph altogether. There was some discussion on that in the Committee stage and it was not until the Report stage in the other House that this was accepted, and it was then more or less passed over as really rather overloading the demand note. We are told by people who vehemently oppose municipal trading that it is absolutely necessary that the ratepayers should know all about it and should have the fullest possible information about the finance. Why did they move to cut it out? What are they afraid of? It is clear that this was slipped in somehow, probably at the suggestion of some anti-municipal society. They have been hoist with their own petard, and they do not like the consequences. I propose that we keep it in.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not really think this is a matter of very great substance or importance. The objections that were raised in another place did not seem to me to be entirely well founded, but to be based on some misapprehension of what was intended by this paragraph. It appeared to be thought by a Noble Lord in another place that a ratepayer ought to be able to get from his demand note a balance sheet of any municipal undertaking situated in his area. That, of course, was not the intention or the object of the paragraph. The object was that the ratepayer should see whether the local authority
which was running a municipal undertaking had credited itself with contributions to the rates from the undertaking or whether the rates were debited with a loss. That is not the same thing as a profit and loss account or a balance sheet, and therefore I do not quite see what my Noble Friend's difficulty was. I have said I do not think this is a matter of much substance or importance. May I remind the House that in Clause 58 the Minister is given the power, after consultation with any local authority or association of local authorities with whom consultation appears to him to be desirable, to-prescribe anything which by this Act is to be prescribed, and the form of any demand note. If this paragraph is omitted it will no longer be absolutely necessary that every demand note should contain this particular information, but on the other hand it is still open to me, after consultation with the local authorities, to prescribe and introduce in the demand note the substance of what is in this paragraph. In those circumstances it hardly seems to me to be worth while to stand out for the insertion of the paragraph.

Sir HENRY SLESSER: I rather doubt the validity of the only argument the right hon. Gentleman has put before the House for accepting the Lords Amendment. He says in principle the particulars which were to be given to the ratepayer ought to be given, and at any rate there is nothing objectionable in that. I have only risen because he has suggested that Clause 58 gives him in any event the power to deal with these matters. I think that is not so. Clause 58, it is true, gives power to make rules, after consultation with local authorities, prescribing anything which may be prescribed by the Act. If this specific power, which does not now exist in the law, to demand particulars in the note of the effect of municipal trading were not carried as a substantive power, I believe that any modification in the demand note under Clause 58 would be beyond the powers of the Minister.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN indicated dissent.

Sir H. SLESSER: That is my opinion. The right hon. Gentleman would be dealing with the form of matters in the demand note where there was no authority
in the Act to deal with the matter at all. How far would his argument lead the right hon. Gentleman? If he is right that Clause 58 gives such extended powers, he could introduce an obligation to put something in the demand note which does not now exist, and which would not necessarily show municipal trading. Any fantastic thing—1 use the word with every respect—which the right hon. Gentleman or a local authority thought ought to figure in the demand note could be put in under Clause 58. It would not necessarily be a matter relating to municipal trading. It might be a question—to take an absurd case—of the political complexion of the local authority, showing on the demand note how many Members belong to the right hon. Gentleman's party and how many to our party, or anything else you like.
Clause 58 simply deals with the machinery of rating. If there be no new power given under the law to deal with the accounts of municipal trading as such, and its results, I am quite satisfied that, as a matter of law, the wording of Clause 53 will not cover the point. Therefore, one comes hack to the question of principle. If the right hon. Gentleman has changed his mind and he thinks it is undesirable in principle that the ratepayers should have knowledge of the financial results of municipal trading, that is a matter we can discuss. I have merely risen to speak, with every respect, of what I believe to be the bad law of the right: hon. Gentleman, when he thinks that Clause 53 will save the situation. Let us either have this power or not have the power in the Bill. It has never been suggested in the Committee stage of the Bill or by anybody at any stage that Clause 58 gives that power.
If the power is given by Clause 58, which I dispute, I object to the use of Clause 58 in this direction, because if Clause 58 is to be so used it means that the Minister will have discretion in the matter. It means that one municipality may be required, after consultation, to make out its returns in one way, and another municipality may be required to make out its returns in another way. If we consider the principle to be good, then let it stand firmly in the Bill as a matter of general principle. If it be bad, let us have nothing to do with it. I object to
this extraordinary bureaucratic power under which the Minister can prescribe from time to time from area to area the form of the demand note. If the argument is to be put up against this House maintaining its position—

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Where does the hon. and learned Member find that I can prescribe different forms in different areas?

Sir H. SLESSER: In this way. Clause 58 provides that
The Minister, after consultation with any local authority … with whom consultation appears to him to be desirable. may by rules prescribe," etc.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: "or association of local authorities."

Sir H. SLESSER: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will not suggest that I am leaving the words out in order to confuse the House. What difference can it make whether he consults the urban district of Hendon or jointly with the urban districts of Hendon and Finchley?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I think the hon. and learned Member is running off on a false scent He is stating that I can prescribe, under Clause 53. different forms for different areas. .I say that I cannot. The fact that I have to consult associations of local authorities -that is, local authorities who are associated from all parts of the country- proves that it is not contemplated that there shall be different forms for different areas. There may be a variation in the form, but the form when fixed must apply to the whole country.

Sir H. SLESSER: It is curious that the right hon. Gentleman should make this point. I draw exactly the opposite conclusion. If he had not the power or the obligation to consult with different local authorities, it might be argued that his powers once exercised would operate automatically over the whole country. The mere fact that he has to consult local authorities or with associations of local authorities makes it clear that the fruits of consultation may be applied only to a particular authority, or at most to an association of local authorities. It is for that very reason that I think Clause 58 makes it clear that it was intended to be elastic. In many cases it may be wise that it should be so elastic. It is
concerned with form and not with matter and is not appropriate to support an entirely new system of demand notes. It does not mean that if the right hon. Gentleman consults with Finchley as to the subjects in the demand note, that the form of that demand note are to be fixed upon Gloucester or Bristol. It must be local in its object, and can only be so carried out in the circumstances.
Here is a serious proposal that the results of municipal trading should be stated in the demand note. That is a proposal which should either be accepted or fall on its merits. The right hon. Gentleman says he has no objection to it on its merits, but he maintains that Clause 58 gives him discretion to deal with the matter. I say that Clause 58 gives him no such discretion. It is not an enabling Clause, but merely machinery for dealing with the law as it exists. If at did give him discretion, it would be highly undesirable. For these reasons, I hope he will state to the House one way or the other whether the Government on the merits of this proposal are or are not prepared to stand by what they accepted, in Committee.

Sir K. WOOD: Clause 7 states:
Information with respect to the following matters shall be included in the Demand Note.
Then follows an enumeration of the statements that must be made in the note. This matter was very fully discussed in Committee, and the hon. and learned Member is incorrect in stating that it has at no time been suggested that other matters apart from those enumerated in Clause 7, shall be included, or may be included, under Clause 58.

Sir H. SLESSER: I said that it was not suggested that Clause 58 in itself would enable you to take a power which you do not get in any other part of the Bill.

Sir K. WOOD: It was most distinctly stated again and again in Committee, and was explained both on Clause 7 and on Clause 58 that, apart from the matters enumerated in Clause 7, there might be certain matters which should be included is the demand note, if the local authorities thought that it was desirable. Hon. Members who attended that very long Committee will, I think, confirm my statement when I say that we had various
suggestions as to what should be included in the demand note. Various hon. Members had very strong views as to what should be included, but it was pointed out that if we added them all, it would have made the demand note almost impossible. Therefore, we came to an agreement that, at any rate as far as the matters stated in Clause 7 were concerned, they should be included.
With regard to the other suggestions made, my right hon. Friend and myself undertook to consult with the local authorities and see whether it was desirable or not to include any other matters in the demand note itself. You might very well defeat the whole intention of the demand note by crowding it with various items, with the result that nobody would read it. When we come to Clause 58, I will ask the House to look at a phrase which the hon. and learned Gentleman missed, or did not refer to, and upon which we rely and which gives my right hon. Friend the power to incorporate in the demand note other items. It says:
The Minister, after consultation with-any local authority or association of local authorities with whom consultation appears to him to be desirable may by rules prescribe anything which by this Act is to be preseribed and the form of any rate, demand note, valuation list, statement, return or other document, etc.
This provision, I am advised, gives us ample power to prescribe everything we desire, even after leaving out the paragraph to which Lord Banbury objected. We could prescribe that there should be an item on the demand note to show gains or losses in connection with the tramway service. This is permissible, and due authority is given to the Minister to do that.

Mr. MONTAGUE: Over the whole country?

Sir K. WOOD: Over the whole country. It. is said that this is bureaucratic. But the hon. and learned Gentleman has forgotten to read Clause 58, Subsection (2), which says that in every case-where, the Minister prescribes under this particular Section the rule must be laid on the Table of this House so that any hon. Member who wishes to do so can challenge it. Therefore, there is no justification for stating that there is anything of a bureaucratic nature in this proposal. In the first place the Minister has to
consult the local authority before he can do anything; and secondly, if he takes action after consultation, the matter has to be laid before this House so that anyone can make an objection. That is the answer to the technical and legal objections raised. On the merits, if you look with a, critical eye on this paragraph (g) you might very well say that certain other alterations should be made in it. For instance, it might well be that before an accurate account could be given as to whether municipal trading is being run at a loss or a profit, the balance sheet for the year must be available. But it may not always be available at the particular time when the demand note is sent out, and in that case provision ought to be made by which the local authority would be able to make an estimate. I hope that the House will not consider this a matter of great substance.

Mr. MARDY JONES: This Debate reminds me of the old saying, "When doctors disagree, consult the patient." In this case the patient, is the general ratepayer. If you want to know the law, do not go to a lawyer. If in this House experienced lawyers can disagree at this stage on a Bill which has taken up more of the time and attention of hon. Members in Committee and on the Floor of the House than any other Bill during this Session, what is the layman to think about it? The optional power in Clause 58 ought to be compulsory by the retention of this paragraph (g). I also, as n layman, have read Clause 58 to mean that it is open at any time for any one local authority, or any two or group of local authorities, to press the Minister for power to insert in the demand note any particular item that they think of importance to their locality. I thought that the main object of this Bill was to introduce uniformity into the system of rating. This optional power does not. bring uniformity; it introduces diversity, and encourages local authorities to introduce all kinds of fads with regard to what should be in a demand note.
I am surprised to learn that this Tory Government, which has always been a super-critic of municipal trading, should object to the retention of this paragraph (g), One would have thought that every Conservative Association in the country
would have demanded the retention of the paragraph, because it provides a splendid opportunity for them to test the efficiency or otherwise of municipal trading. As a matter of fact, the motive in moving the Amendment in the Committee stage was to limit the statement in the Demand Note to cases where there was a, loss on municipal trading. The Tories thought that they had got us, and that with then-mighty steam roller majority they would get such a provision inserted in the Bill. They thought that in every part of the country where on occasions there was a loss on a given municipal undertaking, that fact would be brought, out and be circulated in every club of the country. That was the motive. But when an appeal was made to the sense of fairness of some Members of the Standing Committee, when it was pointed out that if a loss on municipal trading in any area was to be announced where profits had been made they should also be shown, that was carried.
Having been beaten by their own friends, some hon. Members have sheltered behind another place, a place that has no position in the electorate of the country, an unrepresentative body which I shall always discount as unworthy of consideration in the sense of getting at the will of the people. We hope that the Government will reconsider their attitude on this point. It is a glorious opportunity for the Tory party to keep the Labour party in the wilderness for many years to come They always tell us that municipal trading is a failure and a burden on the rates, that it is a form of municipal Socialism. There was a glorious opportunity in these demand notes to show us up in that way. As a matter of fact hon. Members opposite know that municipal trading on the whole has been a great success in ill s country, and that it proves our contention that what we can do municipally we can do nationally by the, introduction of Socialism for the benefit of the people. Every ratepayer is entitled to get this information. He ought to be encouraged to ascertain at first hand from official statements whether municipal undertakings are carried on efficiently or not.
It is all very well for the Minister to say that if any particular local authority or any association of local authorities
wishes to get the information inserted, it can come to him and ask for that permission. That is not uniformity. It simply means that in some progressive districts the request will be made. The Minister's time will be taken up with numerous requests of that sort, and the time of this House will be taken up in giving sanction or otherwise to any rules that he prescribes in the matter. Why should the time of this House be wasted in that way? Here are a Bill and a paragraph which give the power. This House has already voted in favour of it, but another place dares to interfere with the will of this House, and this mighty Tory Government, with a 200 majority all the time pays closer attention to what a few people in another place think right than to what the elected Members of this Houser have approved. When this particular item was before another place, both on Report and Third Reading, there was no discussion at all upon it. I have the OFFICIAL REPORT of the proceedings here. The Mover of the Amendment was not in his place; Lord Banbury was absent, and another Lord moved the Amendment in his name, He simply moved it without giving any reason.

Sir K. WOOD: In fairness to Lord Banbury, I should state that I heard him speak on the subject myself.

Mr. JONES: Not on the Third Reading.

Sir K. WOOD: No, but when he moved the Amendment.

12 N.

Mr. JONES: I am referring to the Third Reading. The point involved in this matter is a vital one. The demand note is. the one protection which the ratepayer has and his one assurance that the money which he hands over to the local authority is being used wisely and well. How is the ratepayer to get value for his money unless he is given the necessary information? One of the chief reasons why municipal electorates have been so indifferent for the last generation is because they have not been given the firsthand information which they require. If this paragraph (g) is retained they will get that information in the demand note and it will be a means of stimulating interest in municipal affairs. If ratepayers discover from the demand note that one of their municipal enterprises
is not paying they will begin to worry the local authority and they will speed up the permanent officials in order to wipe off that loss.
I submit the Government are taking up a weak-kneed position and are running away from this proposal simply because of the action taken in another place by 50 Members, only 32 of whom were out-and-out in favour of this deletion. Why should this House be guided by that handful of nobodies who are in no way responsible to the electorate of this country, who pride themselves upon their ancestry but outside that have nothing on which to pride themselves in a democratic State? These people seek to interfere with the considered judgment of this House. I hope we shall have a Division upon this Amendment so that each constituency may find out what its individual Member thinks about this matter and so that each hon. Member's constituents will have an opportunity of asking him questions when he next visits them. Whether hon. Members opposite like it or not this is going to be as big a test question for Members of this House as anything which has happened in the last Session. Many hon. Members opposite have given lip-service on the public platform and during elections in regard to this matter of municipal trading. Here is the test. The record will be kept and the recording angel will see what hon. Member have done in this matter.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir JOSEPH NALL: I hope the House will not be led into overemphasising the importance of what is actually a very small matter. I do not think it necessary to reopen the Committee stage again, but I should point out that the paragraph in question deals with the accounts of various utility undertakings, and I suggest that the practice in Private Bill Committees in recent years has tended in the direction of eliminating the carrying of either a profit or a loss to the general rate. In most recent cases provision is made, in regard to the profits of any such undertakings, for carrying a stated sum to reserve; the reserves accumulate and are available in succeeding years to meet any losses which may be made from time to time. To insist that a fractional figure showing a loss or a profit, as the case may be, in the terms of so much rate in the pound, is beside the point. These utility under-
takings depend more and more on supplying districts outside the area of the authority to which they belong and those authorities who derive supplies from the central authority strongly object to a profit being made.
One result is a tendency not to make any profit at all out of utility undertakings. That is illustrated in cases like that of the Manchester tramways out of which at one time substantial profits were carried to the relief of rates. That is no longer the practice. The authority of its own accord has given up that method. I suggest to the House that this paragraph, which might have been of some importance previously, is of very little importance in the light of recent practice. The tendency to make profit is declining and recent legislation enables balances, adverse or favourable, to be carried forward either to reserve or into the general balance of the undertakings concerned, and the real situation in respect of any particular undertaking owned by a local authority is to be found in the separate accounts which that authority has to keep and produce for the information of its own ratepayers and of other consumers or users outside the area of the owning authority. I suggest that this point is of no importance in relation to the general body of the Bill.

Mr. MONTAGUE: I am less concerned with fine technical points than with the fact that there is a test and a challenge involved in this question, and I hope the Lords Amendment will not be accepted. When paragraph (g) was first introduced it was with the idea of compelling local authorities to state upon the demand note any loss upon municipal trading, and it was obviously put forward because members of the Conservative party believed the fiction which has gained such prominence in the Press, that municipal enterprise docs not pay. When they came to investigate the question, however, they found that municipal enterprise did pay, and one of the reasons why the Labour party are taking their present attitude on this question is because they want to protect local authorities against the dishonest campaign which has been directed from the Conservative Press and platform against the principle of municipal trading. I would point out to the House how much we are prepared to con-
cede in the discussion of this matter. As the last speaker said, there is unquestionably a tendency—and there should be a tendency—in municipal enterprise to eliminate profits as far as possible, or to give the advantage of profits to the service rather than to the reduction of rates. That is perfectly in line with the principles of the Socialist party and the ideal of Socialism. It shows how sure we are of our case with regard to municipal trading when we are prepared to concede that point, but we are prepared to concede hon. Members another point.
We are asking that the demand note shall state how much the rates have benefited, if at all, by municipal enterprise, and how much the ratepayer has boon injured by municipal enterprise if a loss has been incurred. That does not state the whole of the case however. There is the question of redemption. In a large number of cases throughout the country enterprises have been municipalised by means of loans which have to be paid off through a redemption fund. We have always taken up the position that so long as redemption fund is being paid the amount so paid ought not to be regarded as debt any more than the capital of an ordinary private company is regarded as debt and that the real test of whether a concern is paying or not is whether there is a surplus of receipts over expenditure or not. In a vast number of cases where there is actually a charge on the rates for the time being, there is, nevertheless, an excess of income over expenditure which proves that the enterprise concerned is paying from a practical business point of view.
That consideration does not come into our proposal, however. We are, prepared to leave that point on one side, and to submit our whole case to the test whether the rates have beer, reduced or otherwise as a result of municipal enterprise. We are prepared to dc so because we know-that municipal enterprise pays in this country, just as State enterprise and municipal enterprise, pay in our Dominions and in other courtries. The case for Socialism rests upon the practical experience of this country and the world. and we are prepared to accept the business test and the challenge, which is involved here. As I say, I hope the House will reject the Lords Amendments not only because of the points to which I have
referred, but also because this House had already agreed on the matter. Here we have an obvious case of hon. Members opposite waking up to the fact that the insertion of this paragraph would prove the case for municipal enterprise put forward by the Socialists. They are afraid of their own action, and afraid of the Press and party platform campaign against municipalisation.

Mr. DENNIS HERBERT: I desre to support the remarks of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Hulme (Sir J. Nail), and I suggest that not only is the paragraph a matter of comparatively small importance, but that the information which it proposes to give is likely to be misleading. The question of the success or otherwise of municipal trading does not depend upon whether the accounts of that trading show a profit or not; they may show a profit by reason of the enormous prices charged or by reason of the very inadequate service given. That being the case, the insertion of this paragraph is not only not required, but is, as I say, apt to result in misleading information being given. In the interests of simplicity and in order to give the unfortunate ratepayer a shorter form and less to read, we might well leave out this paragraph. Further, in our own interest we should not at this stage of the Session disagree with a Lords Amendment unless we have serious reason for so doing.

Mr. GROVES: I submit to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health that, according to his own explanation, if this paragraph be removed, the Minister will be left without certain power which he himself desires to possess. Clause 58 reads as follows:
The Minister … may by rules prescribe anything which by this Act is to be prescribed and the form of any rate, demand note, valuation list, statement, return or other document whatsoever which is required or authorised to be used under or for the purposes of this Act.
Clause 58 gives the Minister power to introduce any details prescribed by this particular Act. Surely an Act of Parliament can only contain what is in it, and if you remove paragraph (g) it will be out of it. [Laughter.] Hon. Members laugh. I am not a lawyer, but I think I am able to understand that if you remove the power of the Minister to do anything
that is not prescribed by this Clause 58, he will not be able to do what is to-day in paragraph (g). Therefore, I want to7 direct my remarks to appealing to the Minister of Health that, firstly, in respect of the fact that this House itself was responsible for this Clause, and spent many days and nights on the Bill, there-appears to be at present no earthly reason why we should fall in with the views expressed by hon. Members opposite. The fact of the lateness of the Session and that the other House has sent this down to us, is not, I think, a sufficient reason for us to agree with it.
The Minister of Health a few weeks ago—if he will take this remark of mine as not unfriendly—in a speech delivered by him at Birmingham, said he had put West Ham in its place. He was referring, of course, to his pressure on the guardians. I hope this agreement with the Lords Amendment is not the result of his careful plan to keep West Ham in its place. I want to put before him, not a mere opinion, not something based upon the musty records of a precedent, but something which is of practical experience where I live and which will prove the utility of paragraph (g). These who read the newspapers will think that we in West Ham have peculiar red letter days, such as, firstly, the R.O. payment and, secondly, the days when the people dodge the landlord, if possible, but, believe me, one of the best days in the working of our borough is the day when the local citizens receive the demand note for the payment of rates. You may think the people in our borough receive it with consternation, but they do not. The ratepayers of West Ham are as ready to pay their rates as the people are to pay rents. [Laughter.] It is all very well to smile, but hon. Members opposite know that there has been very little litigation with regard to the citizens of West Ham being taken to court for non-payment of rent, and very little litigation with regard to the ratepayers there being taken to court in order that the borough should collect its rates.
On the day when the local officers bring round the rate demand notes, you will see the shopkeepers and other people, like" myself, who serve on the borough council or in Parliament, in a sense inundated by people who call upon us and ask us to
explain. Is not that a wonderful sign? Is not that the reality of the life of a member of a borough council I Is not that the proof that the powers under paragraph (g) are of utility? There is an old saying that the proof of the pudding is in the eating. I believe that the proof of the pudding is in the amount that is on the plate. [Laughter.] I hope my own side at least will give me audience. Mirth will be necessary about Friday, but it seems to be here already. I want to prove, and to be serious in proving, to this House the utility of paragraph (g). In West Ham for some years we have had to carry on various services, such as tramways, costing the ratepayers from £50,000 to £60,000 a year. We used always to put that on the demand note, and explain to the people why the rates of West Ham were so high. We, the councillors, were compelled to go into details and to explain these things to the citizens of our borough. What has transpired? Of recent years, we have developed a wonderful electricity department, and the profits, or rather the surplus, of that department in West Ham are nearly to-day balancing the deficit on the tramways, a deficit consequent upon the War, when, owing to a large number of local men having to go into the Army, we could not reconstruct the roads, but now that the men have returned we are doing our

best to rehabilitate the system, which is, as I say, costing some £50,000 or £60,000 a year.

We are carefully building up our great electricity department, which is showing a profit, and when the rate demand notes go round, we illustrate the public health service and what it costs to run the local police force, the medical health services —which, as the Minister knows, characterise the great public work of the Borough of West Ham—and the services to and for the children. We are not ashamed of that, nor of the dried milk given to poor children and nursing mothers. The explanations we have given on the rate demand notes in our borough have been of vary great utility. It is sometimes ask same to members of the council to explain them, but that is the glory and part of the honour of being a public representative, and I want to say, quite seriously, that we have proved in our borough that paragraph (g) has been of practical utility and benefit. Therefore, I trust the Minister, on behalf of the Government, will go into the Lobby and defeat the Lords Amendment in this case, and uphold the prestige of the British House of Commons.

Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Lords; in the said Amendment."

The House divided: Ayes, 173, Noes, 46.

Division No. 506.]
AYES.
[12.24 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Ganzoni, Sir John


Ainsworth, Major Charles
Christie, J. A.
Gates, Percy


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C.M. S.
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon, Wilfrid W.
Clarry, Reginald George
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Clayton, G. C.
Greene, W. p. Crawford


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Cobb. Sir Cyril
Gretton, Colonel John


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. k.
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
 Cope, Major William
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.


Betterton, Henry B.
Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Hall, vice-Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne)


Birchall, Major J. Dearman.
Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Hammersley, S. S.


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Crookshank, Col. C. de W- (Berwick)
Harnnon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Harrison. G. J. C.


Blundell, F. N.
Cunliffe, Joseph Herbert
Hartington, Marquess of


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Haslam Henry C.


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxfd, Henley)


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Eden, Captain Anthony
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.


Briscoe, Richard George
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Henn, Sir Sydney H.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Elliot, Captain Walter E.
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.


Brooke, Brigadier-General C.R, I
Elveden, Viscount
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)


Bullock, Captain M.
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)
Herbert, S. (York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by)


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Everard, W. Lindsay
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.


Campbell, E. T.
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Hogg Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)


Cassels, J. D.
Falls, Sir Charles F.
Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy


Cautfey, Sir Henry S.
Fermoy, Lord
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Fraser, Captain Ian
Holt, Captain H, P.


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Hopkins, J. W. W.


Howard, Captain Hon. Donald
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Hume, Sir G. H.
Murchison, C. K.
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Huntingfield, Lord
Nail, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Hurst, Gerald B.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Hutchison, G. A. Clark (Midl'n & P'bl's)
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G.(Ptrsf'ld.)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Nuttall, Ellis
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Pennefather, sir John
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Penny, Frederick George
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


King, Captain Henry Douglas
Philipson, Mabel
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Price, Major C. W. M.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Lamb, J. O.
Ramsden, E.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Rawilnson, Rt. Hon. John Fredk Peel
Wolfs, S. R.


Loder, J. de V.
Rentoul, G. S.
White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dairymple


Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Rice, Sir Frederick
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Lunley, L. R.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
Salmon, Major.
Wise, Sir Fredrie


McLean, Major A.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Wolmer, Viscount


Macmillan, Captain H.
Sandeman, A. Stewart
Womersley, W. J.


Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Sandon, Lord
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)


McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Sassoon, sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)


Macquisten, F. A.
Savery, S. S.
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)


Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Making, Brigadier-General E.
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)
Wragg, Herbert


Malone, Major P. B.
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Skelton, A. N.



Merriman, F. B.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-
Smithers, Waldron
Captain Margesson and Captain


Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Bowyer.


NOES.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Gosling, Harry
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Ammon, Charles George
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Potts, John S.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Saklatvala, Shapurji


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Groves, T.
Scurr, John


Barnes, A.
Hardie, George D
Sitch, Charles H.


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A, (Burnley)
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Snell, Harry


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Stephen, Campbell


Broad, F. A.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Thurtle, E.


Bromley, J.
Kelly, W. T.
Viant, S. P.


Cluse, W. S.
Lee, F.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Dalton, Hugh
March, S.
Windsor, Walter


Davies, Evan (Fbbw Vale)
Montague, Frederick
Wright, W.


Day, Colonel Harry
Morris, R. H.



Dennison, R.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES—


Dunnico, H.
Palin, John Henry
Mr. T. Kennedy and Mr. Hayes.


Fenby, T. D.




Question put, and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments, down to page 13, line 14, agreed to.

CLAUSE 11.—(Rating of, and collection of rates by, owners.)

Lords Amendment: In page 15, line 13, at the end, insert
; and
(b) The rating authority, if they are the owners of any such hereditament: as aforesaid, shall in the case of any hereditament which is of a rateable value not exceeding that specified in the resolution and which is occupied by the owner, make to the owner (subject to the amount of the rate chargeable in respect of the hereditament being paid by the owner within the time fixed by the foregoing paragraph) an allowance corresponding to the amount, if any, passed on by the authority to the occupiers of hereditaments owned by them in respect of the allowance to which the authority are entitled under this sub-section, and, unless the contrary is proved, an
amount not less than five per cent. of the amount payable in respect of rates shall be deemed to have been so passed on by the authority.

Mr. SPEAKER: This is an Amendment to which I must call the attention of the House. It makes a substantial change in the incidence of the rating, although it was foreshadowed by the Minister before the Bill left this House. If the House accept the Amendment from the other place, I shall cause a special entry to be made in the Journal.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
I hope, in view of the expression of opinion in favour of an Amendment of this character in all parts of the House, while the Bill was passing through its later stages, the House will not raise any question of privilege upon it. On the
Third Reading, I made some allusion to a discussion which had taken place in Committee about allowances to be given to owner-occupiers, and I indicated to the House a possible method of meeting the opinions expressed in Committee which appeared to me to receive general approval. Therefore, the Amendment which is now before us has been framed upon the lines that I have suggested, and the only thing to which I need call attention is the provision to meet the case of the owner-occupier who might find it very difficult to prove what amount of allowance had been passed on to the municipal tenants by the local authority, and, that being so, it was unfair to put upon him the onus of proving exactly what was passed on. We propose, therefore, that he should have the minimum allowance of 5 per cent., and if the local authority passed on more, he would, of course, be entitled to a corresponding allowance.

Subsequent Lords Amendments, down to page 22, line 2, agreed to.

CLAUSE 16.—(Assessment areas.)

Lords Amendment: In page 22, line 4, after the word "Minister" insert
on a representation made by any assessment committee or rating authority and.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
I think I ought to say a word about this Amendment. In the course of a discussion upon the Report stage, one or two criticisms were made of what was thought to be the unrestricted powers given to the Minister in particular parts of the Bill. Looking at the Clause again, I think it was drafted more widely than had been intended, and that it is desirable to put some sort of restriction upon the power of the Minister to make a new scheme, so to speak, off his own bat. The case where that would happen was where there had been a dispute between the local authorities, and they could not agree upon a scheme in general. In that case, we want the Minister to be able to come in and solve the problem, and what we are proposing here is that he should only have power to do that, and to make a scheme,
where representation first of all has been made to him by one of the parties in the case. That is a restriction on his power which, I think, is quite proper to put.

Subsequent Lords Amendments, down to page 25, line 37, agreed to.

CLAUSE 22.—(Ascertainment of rateable value.)

Lords Amendment: In page 26, line 37, leave out from the word "the" to the word "undertook," in line 39, and insert "rent at which the hereditament might reasonably be expected to let from year to year if the tenant."

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—[Mr. Chamberlain.]

Mr. MARDY JONES: May I ask the Minister if he will state why this change has been made? I understand it is to leave the definition identical with the definition in the present Act. If that be the sole reason, I have no objection.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That is so.

Subsequent Lords Amendments, down to page 30, line 18, agreed to.

CLAUSE 31.—(Appeal to Quarter Sessions.)

Lords Amendment: In page 34, line 24, after the word "just" insert

and
(b) where the appellant is the county valuation committee or a local authority, the occupier of the hereditament to which the appeal relates may at any time before the hearing of the appeal instead of appearing as respondent give notice to the Court that he desires to be called as a witness in the case, and if he gives such a notice shall, unless called as a witness by any party to the appeal, be called by the Court as a witness, and may be cross-examined by or on behalf of any party to the appeal.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This is an Amendment which is designed to protect the interests of the small-owner ratepayer, to meet a case in which the ratepayer may have satisfied the Assessment Committee, or no question has been raised by the Assessment
Committee in respect of his particular property, but there is an appeal against the Assessment Committee's decision by a County Valuation Committee, or some other local authority, and, incidentally, of course, this ratepayer might be affected under this decision, and he might be deterred from resisting the appeal because of the cost that might be involved. Therefore, it is proposed here that he may be able to appear without being subjected to any cost whatever. That is probably an Amendment which will be agreed to on all sides.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 32.—(Procedure on appeals.)

Lords Amendment: In page 37, line 36, leave out Sub-section (8).

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This is the one Amendment which has been thought likely to give rise, perhaps, to some considerable discussion in this House. The House will recollect that the particular Sub-section which is to be left out was not in the original Bill, but it was accepted by me on the Report stage sifter hearing several speeches on the subject as to whether a solicitor should have the right to appear before the Quarter Sessions. The ground on which I recommended this House to accept the Amendment was not that we were con-corned with the privileges of the Bar or of the profession of solicitors, but we were concerned to get a cheapening of the processes of law for poor people, who could not afford high fees, but who were just as much entitled to justice as those who are better off. The Amendment was accepted without a Division, but in another place it was thrown out, and the case against it was put so concisely and so admirably, if I may say so, by the Lord Chancellor, that perhaps I may be allowed to read to the House what he said:
As one who had long experience at Quarter Sessions I should like to confirm what Lord Charnwood has just said, that the rating appeals are perhaps the most complicated cases with which Quarter Sessions have to deal. Many special points
are raised which require skilled advice in order to deal with them, and if Quarter Sessions had not the assistance in rating appeals of advocates who are fairly skilled in that special branch of the law they would, I believe, be put in real difficulty. The Sub-section that it is sought to strike out applies not only to the committees of Quarter Sessions, who practically, for this purpose, will be Quarter Sessions, but also to the Recorder, who will have no committee, and who himself will be the Court of Quarter Sessions. Therefore, to adopt this Sub-section would be to make a substantial change in the law, which, I venture to submit, had better not be made on a Bill directed to another subject.
The only criticism that arises on that statement is this: Are these appeals to which the Lord Chancellor referred properly typical of the sort of appeals that we are likely to get in the future? In other words, is it a fact that small people are deterred from prosecuting their appeals by reason of the expense? At any rate, that is the consideration which occurred to me. But a Bill of this sort ought not to effect a substantial change in the practice subsisting in the two branches of the law. We do not want to do that. But I do want to make the process of appeal as cheap as possible for the poor man, where, after all, the value may not be intrinsically high. I have tried to see whether it is possible to secure our object without exciting hostility and without re-inserting the Sub-section in its original form. I have consulted the Lord Chancellor on the subject, and, so far as he is concerned, he says that the proposal which I am about to put before the House would meet his point. Perhaps I had better read my proposal now, or read the paragraph as it would appear. It is as follows. In the original Sub-section (8) to leave out all words after the word "On," and to insert new words so as to make the Sub-section read:
On the hearing of an appeal by a Committee of Quarter Sessions under this Section, any party to the appeal may, if the rateable value of the hereditament to which the appeal refers, and as it appears on the valuation list, does not exceed £100, appear by solicitor, instead of in person or by counsel.
I would draw the attention of the House to two points. First of all, that it is only proceedings in Committee of Quarter Sessions, and secondly, solicitors may appear in these particular individual
cases where the value of the hereditament does not exceed £100. Hon. Members will note that the valuation is as it appears in the valuation list. Perhaps we may now expect that this proposed Amendment will be accepted here, as I believe it will be accepted in another place, as being a reasonable compromise which allows us to cheapen the cost of proceedings in the smaller cases, and which does not make the larger change that has been referred to. Therefore, if this House will disagree with the Lords in their Amendment, I propose to move instead the Amendment which I have read out.

Sir H. SLESSER: The right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has suggested that this is a very fair and reasonable adjustment of a difficult problem; I agree. Substantially the limit of the right hon. Gentleman is the limit which obtains already in County Court jurisdiction. We are not, therefore, disturbing very seriously the existing position. I do not want to go into a long discussion at the moment. I hope the House will accept this proposal. I would just say this: that it would be extremely undesirable to discuss the question whether there is a reduction of cost in not employing the two branches of the profession on appeals dealing with rating. The question of the relation of the two branches of the question may have to be considered, but this is not the occasion for it. I think it is a very excellent way— if I may say so—of getting out of what promised to be a very real difficulty, and I hope the House will accept the Amendment proposed by the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: As the Mover of the Amendment in this House which the Lords have not accepted, I must say that I am not at all satisfied with the compromise offered by the Minister of Health. It seems to me that it is a compromise really conserving the rights of the Bar, rather than conserving the rights of the ratepayers. It is true that my Amendment was down in the interests of the small ratepayers, because I realised that in the future we should have a large number of occupier owners of small property who would, from time to time, have possibly to appear before Quarter
Sessions on appeal against assessments. I also put the Amendment down in the interests of another class—that is the shopkeeper class of the country, and on behalf of the National Chamber of Trades representing some hundreds of thousands of those shopkeepers. These are the people who have in the past had a great deal of trouble with assessments and are likely to have more trouble in the future; particularly under this new valuation scheme. Putting it at £100 will undoubtedly cover the position of the small property owner-occupiers. But it will not by any means cover the position of the shopkeeper class.
As regards the question raised by the Lord Chancellor, that question of rating will require barristers to deal with them —-I quite agree. That is the reason why in my Amendment I left in the words
That an appeal shall be heard either in person or by a barrister or by a solicitor.
I agree with the Lord Chancellor that in intricate points of raving law it is much better to be represented by a barrister, but the majority of cases that fall to be dealt with are merely questions of value, things that can be settled by people with local knowledge and by a solicitor much better than by a barrister. That is the reason why I desired this Amendment originally passed by the House to be adhered to. I have had a good deal of experience in local administration and in rating matters, and I only remember one case where an appeal was made to Quarter Sessions, and that was by a very wealthy man who appealed against the assessment of hi;; garage. A system less costly and cumbersome will meet, the case of the smaller ratepayer. I do not want to see brought forward in this new Bill similar conditions to those which have obtained in the past. I noticed in the Lords that when this Amendment to delete Sub-section (3) was brought forward it was not brought forward till the very last moment. It was not brought forward in the Committee stage. The Leader, the Marquess of Salisbury, stated in his remarks to the House:
I must say that upon this Bench we ourselves are divided as to the merits of the Amendment. If your Lordships will observe that the great array of legal talent which sits around me all belong to the barrister branch of the profession' you will not he altogether surprised.
I am not concerned with any quarrel or difference of opinion between the two classes of the legal profession, or about the statement made by one noble Lord that another was acting as a blackleg. I do not want to be a blackleg to the ratepayers. That is the reason why I should like to adhere to the Amendment as originally put down on the Order Paper by myself. To my mind it is a fair and reasonable suggestion. It is not limited to £100, because that is a question for the House to decide. What, however, I do ask the Government to do in this matter is to give us the same privilege that they gave to the Members of the other House, and that is a free vote in this matter. Then, at any rate, we who represent the ratepayers will have the right to vote as we think best.

Mr. D. HERBERT: I think it is due to this House and to both branches of the legal profession that a word should be said on this matter as to the position taken by the general body of solicitors on this question. To my knowledge as a member of the Council of the Law Society, and from inquiries I have been able to make since yesterday afternoon among my colleagues, I believe that the Minister's proposal meets entirely with their approval as it does with my personal approval. I am very glad that the right hon. Gentleman has found this way out of what might have been a difficult position. There has been a vast amount of misunderstanding as to the Sub-section which was originally put into the Bill by this House, and which has been struck out by the Lords. I think it is right that it should be understood that that sub-section was not put in either at the instance of, or for the purpose of benefiting, the solicitor's profession.
Reference to the proceedings of the Committee will show how the matter exactly came up. The original idea of the Bill was that there was to be an appeal to Quarter Sessions. It was urged that that was an expensive matter for the small ratepayer in small cases. The Government was faced with suggestions that there should be in smaller cases an appeal to Petty Sessions. The objections to that were obvious. Without, however, going into them, I may say that that point was met by the Minister in charge
promising to reconsider the point, and to see what could be done on Report stage to deal with the appeals of small ratepayers in comparatively small cases. It was, therefore, agreed that these appeals should be heard by a committee of Quarter Sessions, which should travel, and not merely sit in the ordinary quarter sessions town, but should sit in all places where the petty sessions sit, and that solicitors should have a right of audience before that committee.
1.0 P.M.
The Council of the Law Society took up this matter, not as a case for looking after the solicitor's point of view, but that, of the clients. The Council of the Law Society has always taken the position that in relation to these Parliamentary Bills it is their duty generally to look after matters of legal procedure affecting clients as a whole, and not only after the interests of a particular profession. For that reason alone the action was taken. That, I think, is shown by the fact that we are very glad indeed to accept the Amendment proposed by the Minister. I desire to remind the House, in accepting it, that prior to this Bill the great bulk of these small cases of rating appeals were appeals to petty sessions and were, therefore, appeals taken by solicitors. Therefore, in this case there is no extension of the privileges of solicitors. I would like to assure my hon. and learned Friends in this House that, so far as the profession generally is concerned, there was not the slightest idea of making any encroachment on their privileges. A poll recently has shown that the great bulk of the profession are against fusion of the two branches, and they are also equally opposed to any undue extension of the rights of advocacy to solicitors. I hope that under the circumstances the Minister's proposal will be accepted as one which entirely meets the case which we have been anxious about, namely, the cases of the small ratepayer and one which under the circumstances is satisfactory to both branches of the profession.

Sir LESLIE SCOTT: I think the House will welcome the statement made by the hon. Member for the Watford Division (Mr. D, Herbert) on behalf of the solicitors' profession. As a member of the Bar, I should like to express the
view that we recognise in that statement the customary public spirit and disinterestedness of the solicitors' profession. From the point of view of the Bar, I regard the proposed Amendment of the existing Clause as entirely satisfactory. I am deeply convinced that it is in the interests of the administration of justice that we should preserve the division of the legal profession between the solicitor, who is in close touch with the client, and the barrister, who argues the case in Court. I believe that division assists us in many ways, though I agree with the learned Solicitor-General that this is not an occasion for a discussion on that interesting question. At the same time I believe the whole House, and, I think, the Bar as well as the solicitors, are agreed that in small cases the policy which has been in force for so long in County Courts of allowing solicitors to have audience in small cases is a highly desirable one, and I see no reason why that policy should not be extended in the modified way proposed in this compromise Clause.

Mr. MARDY JONES: I must say that the understanding that has been come to between the two branches of the law is of considerable—

Sir L. SCOTT: There is no understanding.

Mr. JONES: The Minister in charge of the Bill gave us the impression that there had been some consultation behind the scenes.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That was between myself, who am neither a solicitor nor a barrister, and the Lord Chancellor.

Mr. JONES: I accept the Minister's correction. I am quite sure he has agreed to the arrangement in the interests of the ratepayers, and not in the interests of the legal profession.

Sir L. SCOTT: I would just like to say that it was not until I heard the statement by the Minister in charge of the Bill that I knew of the proposal.

Mr. JONES: I am more concerned with the interests of the general ratepayer
under this arrangement than in the understanding between the two branches of the law. I think it is high time the two branches of the profession should, if I may respectfully suggest it, apply for affiliation to the Trade Union Congress. I am not sure whether they would then affiliate with the Amsterdam International or the Washington International; but the unity which has been displayed here speaks volumes for the harmony of the season of the year, and I hope the trade unions of the country will copy the example set by the legal profession.
I think the Minister has done very well in this compromise to take the rateable value of £100 as the level up to which a solicitor can appear on behalf of the ratepayer. What we are chiefly concerned about is to protect the right of the small ratepayer to have a legal hearing of his case without undue expense, and the compromise certainly meets that, because up to £100 the limit will cover practically the tenant-class and the very small shopkeeper class. From what I can hear in my division, and in South Wales, generally, I think they will be fairly satisfied with this arrangement. I am not quite so sure that all the shopkeepers and tradesmen will be satisfied, because the unfortunate thing about the £100 rateable value limit is that while that sum is a substantial figure in some districts, it will be very small in others, and there will be many a small struggling shopkeeper who will not get the benefit of this arrangement. However, I appreciate the point of the Minister that whatever figure was taken there would be some criticism as to its level, and as far as the very small shopkeeper and tenant class are concerned, I think it is a very good arrangement, and I shall support it.

Mr. RHYS: I would like to ask for a further answer to my question, Does the figure of £100 represent the gross or the rateable value? The answer I received just now was that it represented the valuation which appeared in the valuation list, but it is quite possible for both gross and rateable value to be inserted in the list, and where the gross value is over £100, the rateable value may be under £100. Would the right hon. Gentleman clear up that point?

Sir K. WOOD: The answer is, the rateable value. I think the case of the small shopkeeper which has been referred to is very largely met. If the hon. Member will look at the Schedule he will see that it would be possible for the gross value to be £125 if regard be had to the deductions provided in the Schedule.

Mr. J. JONES: I have listened to the legal experts giving us a definition of their differences which have been so amicably settled. The lion has lain down with the lamb, and I expect eventually they will both dine together in perfect consanguinity. There is an old adage which says that when certain people fall out honest men do not come by their own. Some of us have been members of overseers' bodies, on which we have had to listen to appeals by poor ratepayers. We have been able to settle, 90 times out of 100, any difficulty in which ratepayers find themselves. I would like to ask hon. Members opposite, who seem to be so pleased with this arrangement, to give the same amount of consideration to the dispute likely to arise in connection with the Government's new scheme for building houses in Scotland. There we have a question as to the line of demarcation between bodies of workers.

Mr. DEPUTY - SPEAKER (Captain FitzRoy): We cannot now discuss that question.

Mr. JONES: I am not discussing it, I am only bringing it forward as a horrible example. A solicitor may be the best man for a job, because a barrister is not so well acquainted with the local circumstances of ratepayers in a particular area. The solicitor is the man who in the first place ascertains all the facts connected with the case, he lives in the locality, he knows the property and knows the history of the property; and as an ordinary layman who has been a member of local authorities, I have the opinion that the solicitor is better able to represent the interests of the ratepayer than any barrister can be, because the barrister is generally a kind of travelling showman. Whatever the compromise may be, I feel it does not deal with the real facts of the situation so far as the individual with a grievance is concerned. I know very well that when the Lord Chancellor con-
descends to agree to anything he has got the best end of the stick. So far as we are concerned, we regard this as a compromise accepted by mutual arrangement between the lawyers on both sides; and we can do nothing else but sit and grumble—except foot the bill. Whether a man is successful or not. I know who will have to pay the bill.

Mr. KELLY: I want to say a word of protest against this compromise, because it still leaves the position such that, if the case has to go to Quarter Sessions, a barrister will have to appear. There is nothing in this compromise which enables a solicitor to appear in the case if it comes before the Recorder. He may appear before the Committee where committees are in existence but not before the Recorder. I cannot understand the minds of people who consider that when a rase has to be heard in a certain Court only those who have gone through a certain legal training are capable of appearing and appealing. We had examples of the disadvantage of that during the War period. Then this House enabled even laymen to appear before munitions tribunals—even on appeal, which was not to the High Court but to the Appeals Tribunal. Once the case entered the High Court we saw the spectacle of Judges saying they could not hear; they were extremely deaf on those occasions. But when we had to appeal to the Appeal Tribunals, laymen were able to appear even against counsel, and in most cases the layman secured the verdict as against those of the legal profession on the other side. I cannot understand why solicitors should be debarred from appearing at any stage in these rating and valuation appeals, and I want to voice my protest against the bar that has been put up against them by the compromise accepted to-day.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: Would the Minister in his reply clear up a point as to the solicitor not appearing before the Recorder's Court even when the rateable value is under £100?

Sir K. WOOD: It is only before the Committee.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: Then may I point out to the Minister that I rather thought—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member has already exhausted his right.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: It is only a question.

Amendment made in words restored: In page 37, line 36, leave out from the word "On" to the end of the Sub-section, and insert the words
the hearing of an appeal by a committee of Quarter Sessions under this Section any party to this appeal may, if the rateable value of the hereditament to which the appeal relates, as appearing in the valuation list does not exceed one hundred pounds, appear by solicitor instead of in person or by counsel."—[Mr. Chamberlain.]

Subsequent Lords Amendments, down to page 43, line 42, agreed to.

CLAUSE 45.—(Inclusion in one proceeding of separate hereditaments.)

Lords Amendment: In page 45, leave out lines 32 to 34.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—[Sir K. Wood.]

Captain GARRO-JONES: It appears to me that the words which the other House proposes to leave out are words which have for their sole object the simplification of legal procedure in these appeals. We ought to aim at more simplification, as at present it is complicated enough. Is there any objection to leaving these words in?

Sir K. WOOD: This Amendment is purely a drafting Amendment. On examination it will be found that these three lines are unnecessary, because if different properties are in the same valuation list, they must be in the same rating area, and therefore under the jurisdiction of the same Court.

Subsequent Lords Amendments, down to page 90, line 39, agreed to.

EIGHTH SCHEDULE.—(Enactments repealed.)

Lords Amendment: In page 91, after line 16, insert:


13 & 14 Geo.5, c. 39.
 The Agricultural Rates Act, 1923.
 In subsection (2) of section six the words from "and section nine" to the end of the subsection, and the substituted definition of rateable value in Part II. of the Schedule.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—[Mr. Chamberlain. ]

Captain GARRO-JONES: While it is perfectly true that a large number of these Amendments are merely drafting Amendments—and I think the Government may count themselves fortunate that they have got them so easily through the House—this one seems something more than a mere drafting Amendment because it proposes to repeal a part of the Statute passed as recently as 1923. and therefore I think we should have some explanation of it.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am always ready to give information when it is sought. This particular Amendment is to provide for the repeal of the definition of rateable value in the Agricultural Rates Act, 1923, which does not now apply, because it has been abolished by this Bill, and has therefore become superfluous.

Orders of the Day — CRIMINAL JUSTICE BILL.

Order for Consideration of Lords Amendment read.

Motion made, and Question, "That the Lords Amendments be now considered," put, and agreed to —[Captain Hacking]

Lords Amendments considered accordingly.

CLAUSE 1.—(Probation officers.) Lords Amendment:

In page 2, line 2, after the word "as" insert
subject to the provisions of this Part of this Act with respect to scales of salaries, remuneration and expenses.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Captain Hacking): I beg to move. That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
It is not my intention to go into any details in reference to these Amendments, but if any hon. Member wishes to have any information I shall be only too glad to give it. The first Amendment which I am now proposing to accept is one intended to simply remove any possible inconsistency between the two Clauses.

Subsequent Lords Amendments, down to page 10, lines 9 and 10, agreed to.

CLAUSE 11.—(Venue in indictable offences.)

Lords Amendment:

1n page 10, lines 11 and 12, leave out "them in pursuance of this Sub-section" and insert
any examining justices in pursuance of this Sub-section—(a) it appears to the examining justices.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.—[Captain Hacking. ]

Sir H. SLESSER: We are now approaching a point at which the Amendments are not merely drafting proposals, and I think we should have some explanation in regard to this particular Amendment.

Notice taken that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Member's being present—

The SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir-Thomas Inskip): This Amendment deals with Clause 11, which relates to the venue of indictable offences. It is thought a desirable thing that an additional safeguard should be given to the prisoner to this extent. In the Bill as it stands the prisoner has the right in cases of hardship to ask that he shall not be tried in any other place but that in which the offence has been committed. The Amendment gives him a right of appeal when his application has been refused before the magistrates.

Sir H. SLESSER: I think this is a most valuable provision, and the giving of this
right to the prisoner is something which we should all welcome.

Sir HERBERT NIELD: The Amendment we are now dealing with is due tithe intervention of the hon. and learned Gentleman who has just addressed the House, and I should have thought that he would have allowed it to pass without further comment.

Sir H. SLESSER: I did not comment upon it; in fact I simply welcomed it as a valuable provision.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 12.—(Provisions as to taking of depositions, and caution to and statement of accused on proceeding before examining Justices,)

Lords Amendment:

In page 12, line 22, after the word "him" insert
who knows anything relating to the facts and circumstances of the case or anything tending to prove the innocence of the accused.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I beg to move "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This Amendment is really a small consolidation of the existing law and does not really alter the effect of the Section. It merely lays down the rights of the prisoner to the extent stated in the Amendment, and makes it plain that he may call upon anybody at the time in question who knows anything about the case who can satisfy the magistrate that he is innocent and ought not to be committed.

Captain GARRO-JONES: We are now in the domain of jurisdiction and procedure for indictable offences, and should not limit the rights of the prisoner in such cases.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: This proposal extends them.

Captain GARRO-JONES: I think this proposal is a limitation of the rights of the prisoner, because a witness might be prevented from being called altogether under certain circumstances. I think we
ought to have some assurance that this will not limit the rights which belong to a prisoner being tried for indictable offences.

Captain HACKING: This proposal does not limit the prisoner's rights; in fact, it gives him more protection.

Captain GARRO-JONES: These words appear to be to limit the rights of the prisoner.

Captain HACKING: The hon and gallant Member asked for my assurance that they did not limit his rights, and I gave it.

Mr. HARDIE: Surely this proposal limits the rights of the prisoner, because it precludes certain people from coming forward to help him in his defence.

Sir H. NIELD: Those who are familiar with the ordinary procedure in these cases will see that this is a great extension in favour of the prisoner. It is extremely unwise in many cases for the prisoner to make a statement before the magistrate, because his cross-examination of the witnesses might indicate the line of his defence. I think this proposal is an enormous extension of the power of the prisoner, and I hope it will be passed.

Lords Amendment:

In page 12, leave out lines 23 to 28.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."— [Captain Hacking.]

Mr. MARCH: I should like to have a little further explanation of this Amendment. This seems to be a case where you are restricting the right of the prisoner by taking out these words. This Amendment seems to be doing this to a greater degree than the previous Amendment, and therefore I should like some further explanation of it.

Mr. KELLY: Surely we should have some explanation on this point. I am in very great doubt about the words which have been recently added being to the advantage of the prisoner at all, but to take these words out now does seem to be a further limitation and against the interests of the prisoner who is going to
be tried. I hope we shall have some statement made from the Treasury Bench to justify this proposal.

The SOLICITOR - GENERAL: The omitted paragraph at line 23, which is now being dealt with by this Amendment, gave effect to Section 23 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, which is about to be repealed by the existing Bill. As hon. Members will see by the words which have just been inserted, the Clause now includes the words
who knows anything relating to the facts and circumstances of the case or anything tending to prove the innocence of the accused.
The intention of these Amendments is not to enable long investigations into matters which are not necessary to enable the magistrate to decide the duty which is their duty, of inquiring as to whether there is a prima facie ease against the accused person. The only intention is that the person shall have every facility to call evidence which he thinks is likely to prove his innocence, and not, for instance, in the case of a criminal libel, to enable the person to use the proceedings before the magistrates for the purpose of justifying the truth of the libel, which is not a question for the magistrate at all and which must be discussed before a jury, because the jury have to be satisfied as to the justification of the criminal libel.
The effect of these two Amendments is to give the person an additional right which, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ealing (Sir Herbert Nield) has said, is a valuable extension of his privileges, and at the same time not to convert the inquiry before the magistrate into an opportunity for entering into a great variety of matters which are not really relevant to the only inquiry which the magistrates have to conduct. For instance, another matter which it is not intended that the magistrates shall have to hear evidence upon, is evidence which might be given and probably will be given before the second court to whom the person is committed, as to circumstances justifying a smaller sentence. I hope that the House will see that these two Amendments are in the person's interests, without running into the opposite danger of indefinitely extending the area of inquiry and allowing oppor-
tunity for all sorts of evidence which is not relevant to the inquiry which the magistrates have to hold.

Lords Amendment: In page 18, line 13, at the end insert:

NEW CLAUSE A.—(Power to dispense with grand jury at Quarter Sessions where all persons committed have pleaded guilty.)

A.—(1) If by the fifth day preceding the day appointed for holding any Quarter Sessions no persons have been committed for trial at the Sessions except persons in respect of whom a certificate has been transmitted in pursuance of Section 4 of the Administration of Justice Act, 1920, stating that they have pleaded guilty or admitted the truth of the charge, there shall be deemed to be no business requiring the attendance of grand jurors at that Sessions, and the provisions of the Assizes and Quarter Sessions Act, 1908, shall apply accordingly.
(2) In any case to which this Section applies an indictment against any person for the offence in respect of which he was committed for trial may be presented to the Court without having been found by a grand jury, and where an indictment is so presented it shall be proceeded with in the same manner as it would have been proceeded with before the commencement of this Act, and all enactments and rules of law relating to procedure in connection with indictable offences shall have effect accordingly.
(3) An indictment against any person presented to a Court of Quarter Sessions in pursuance of this Section may contain, in addition to the counts for the offences specified in the caption of the depositions, any further counts founded on facts or evidence disclosed in any examination or deposition taken before a justice in the presence of the accused.
A Court of Quarter Sessions may in any case direct any such further counts as aforesaid to be added to any indictment presented to the court.
(4) Rules may be made under the Indictments Act, 1915, for carrying this Section into effect, and in particular for modifying, so far as is necessary for the purpose of this Section, any enactment, including any statutory form, and for applying with the necessary modifications the provisions of Section 3 of the Indictable Offences Act, 1848, relating to certificates of an indictment having been found.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
Perhaps I ought to say a few words or this Amendment. Hon. Members will. remember that on the Report stage it was decided that the Grand Jury at Quarter Sessions should not be abolished, but those who are most in favour of the retention of Grand Juries will realise that the best way to get public opinion in favour of the maintenance of Grand Juries is not to require the attendance of persons summoned to serve on Grand Juries when there is really nothing for them to do. If they are required really for the purpose of saying whether a true Bill ought to be returned against any person charged with an offence, the House has decided that they shall be retained. Under the existing law there is a provision in the Administration of Justice Act, 1920, by which when a person pleads guilty to an offence at the Sessions, the Justice's Clerk may forward a certificate to that effect to the Clerk of the Court of Trial, and the Grand Jury may then merely on the production of that certificate return a true Bill without hearing any witnesses. If the Grand Jury are to be summoned merely for that formality, hon. Members will agree it is an unnecessary attendance, merely to look at the certificate and say, "This is a certificate that the man has pleaded guilty, and therefore we do not want to hear any evidence or witnesses, and the man may be committed for trial." It is in order to avoid attendance for that idle formality that this Amendment is moved, and I respectfully hope the House will accept it.

Sir H. SLESSER: Although I happened to be one of the promoters of the Motion on Report to retain the Grand Jury, I agree with the Solicitor-General that in this particular case there is good ground for dispensing with the Grand Jury, and, speaking for myself, I am willing to accept this proposal, because I think it will do away with any possibility of another attack on the Grand Juries for another half century. Having succeeded in achieving victory we now wish to entrench ourselves against this or any other Government which may try to destroy this ancient institution. For this reason I am very much in favour of this Amendment, because though some Members may not agree, there are some ancient institutions which exist to defend the liberty of the subject, and the Grand Jury is one. Therefore I hope the House will agree to
this proposal to exclude the obligation to call a Grand Jury in such cases.

Sir H. NIELD: I agree that it would be nonsense to have a Grand Jury summoned when the only persons to appear before them are those who have pleaded guilty. That shows the mistake in the legislation of 1920. I think it was a pity that the power was ever given to enable persons to plead guilty and to have a certificate given of that plea and so be precluded from coming before the Grand Jury. As I understand this matter, it should not preclude such persons from withdrawing the plea of guilty, because there will be no Grand Jury summoned if he or others in the same position as himself are the only persons for trial and that fact comes down on the certificate. If he does want to withdraw his plea and plead " Not Guilty," he ought to have a perfectly clear ground before the Grand Jury without their having any knowledge whatever that he had pleaded before, and that as a result of that a certificate has been given. I think if that is so he should be able to withdraw his plea of " Guilty" and plead " Not Guilty" before the Grand Jury and have no reference made to his having pleaded guilty before. In the present state of the law it is inevitable, for otherwise, as the Solicitor-General has said, you may have a Jury summoned from all parts of the country and find there is no work to do because the Act of 1920 has made it a work of supererogation.

CLAUSE 22.—(Amendment of Count;/ of Hertford Acts, 1874 and 1876.)

Lords Amendment: In page 20, leave out line 40 and insert "commencement of this Act."

Captain HACKING: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This and the following Amendments are merely drafting Amendments, to allow this Clause to come into operation simultaneously with this part of the Bill, namely, on the 1st of June next. It is necessary that there should be a special provision for this Clause alone.

Subsequent Lords Amendments, down to page 27, line 41, agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 29, line 36, at the end insert:

NEW CLAUSE B.—(Unlawful possession of pension documents.)

B.—(1) If any person receives, detains or has in his possession any document to which this Section applies as a pledge or a security for a debt or with a view to obtaining payment from the person entitled thereto of a debt due either to himself or to any other person, he shall be able, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds, or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or to both such fine and imprisonment.
(2) This Section applies to certificates or official documents evidencing or issued in connection with the light of persons to pensions or allowances payable out of any grant which may be made out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom in pursuance of any Act for civil non-effective services.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment"?
Perhaps I ought to say in reference to this new Clause that it was a Clause inserted to extend a small branch of the law which is already enacted in certain Acts of Parliament relating to pensions under the Army and Navy Acts. It is to prevent moneylenders or any oilier person taking in pledge documents entitling a person to a pension, who is in the Civil Service. The House will recognise this is an essential provision which ought to be made.

CLAUSE 38. — (Penalty for drunkenness while in charge of motor car and for reckless driving.)

Lords Amendment: In page 31, line 19, at the end insert:
and shall be disqualified to hold a licence to drive for twelve months from the date of the conviction:
Provided that a person who is disqualified to hold a licence to drive under this or any other Act may apply to the justices who made the order to reconsider their decision at the. end of any period of not less than three months; or, with the leave of the Court, after a shorter period.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I beg to move. "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
I shall propose a new Amendment in lieu of the Lords Amendment. There is
no desire on the part of the Government to depart from the substance of the Amendment, but the intention is to fill in some of the gaps which hon. Members who examine the Amendment will find in it. The substance of the Amendment which was put in in another place was to enact that a person who is convicted of being drunk in charge of a motor car should be disqualified for 12 months, but there was a proviso that there should be liberty to apply to the Justices to reconsider the disability to which the convicted person was subjected at the end of any period of not less than three months, but it will be seen that there are, one or two gaps which require to be filled.
2.0 P.M.
If hon. Members will be good enough to look at the Amendment standing on the Paper, they will see a much longer Clause in substitution of the Clause which contains the enactment but it preserves the same effect. It provides that a person shall be disqualified for 12 months, as the Lords have proposed, and that particulars of the conviction shall be endorsed on the licence, but it also provides that any person who has had such a conviction recorded against him may apply to the Courts from time to time, and the Court may order as it thinks proper, having regard to the character of the accused and his conduct after conviction, that the disability shall come to an end. No provision is made for an appeal from the refusal of the magistrates to order the disability to end although, of course, under the ordinary law there is a right of appeal from the original conviction. If hon. Members are satisfied that this Clause carries out the intention of the Amendment moved in another place—which had the support, I think, of all the Noble Lords who are associated with the party opposite—no doubt, the House will be prepared to accept the Amendment which stands in the name of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

Mr. MONTAGUE: Might I ask precisely what is meant by the provision as to conduct after conviction? Does it mean general conduct, or does it mean conduct in reference to driving a motor ear? In what way would it be interpreted?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: The hon Member will appreciate that what we are
considering is a conviction for being drunk while in charge of a motor car, and, presumably, the magistrates would consider the habits of the person, as proved before them, in relation to the offence. If anyone who had been convicted of being drunk while in charge of a motor car came before the magistrates and satisfied them that he had ceased to be a victim of drunkenness, presumably that is something relating to the conduct of the accused subsequent to the conviction which would satisfy the magistrates that they need no longer leave him subject to the disability of being unable to drive a motor car. I may point out that he can only come to the magistrates after three months, and at intervals of three months. There is no attempt to define precisely the scale of conduct which it is relevant to prove before the masigtrates. but, presumably, no person will come and prove irrelevant facts when the one relevant fact that is wanted is to satisfy the magistrates that he is an ordinary law-abiding, sober citizen who may he trusted to drive a motor car.

Sir FRANK MEYER: I feel that I cannot let this Amendment pass without making a few comments upon it. It seems to me to be a very unwise provision indeed. It seems to me to be a kind of special class legislation directed against the drivers of motor cars. The effect of this provision will be to deprive the driver of a motor car of the means of earning his living. I am quite aware that, when one talks of drunken motorists, the picture conjured up is that of a young man who has dined not wisely but too well, and who afterwards drives a high-powered motor car perhaps about the streets of London, comes into collision with the police, and is duly convicted of being drunk in charge of a motor car. With such a one no one has any sympathy, and no one pretends that he should not, be subjected to the severest penalties; but I am thinking of the large number of people who have to drive motor cars for their living—the drivers of taxi-cabs, motor omnibuses, lorries, or commercial vehicles, professional drivers, and so on; and against this class a special kind of legislation is being provided.
After all, the man who drives an engine is not deprived of his living for 12 months
on account of one conviction for insobriety. The man who rune a train, or a lift, or anything else which may endanger human life, is not thus deprived. This seems to me to be a part of the new idea of legislating specially against motorists, and, inasmuch as it may deprive certain classes of people of the means of earning their livelihood, I think it is extremely dangerous. Moreover, it may have an effect exactly opposite to that which is desired, because it takes away the discretion of the magistrates. At the present time they have the discretion to deprive a man of his licence for one month, three months, a year, or any such period. Under this provision they are compelled to deprive a man of his licence for 12 months, and it may have the very effect of preventing a bench of magistrates from convicting a man who has to earn his living by driving a motor car, because they may think it is too severe a penalty to deprive him of his living for 12 months.
It may be answered that the convicted man has the right of coming back to the Court at intervals of three months and asking, not that the conviction may be quashed, but that his licence may be restored. That also seems to me to be an entirely new provision in criminal procedure. What is the man to prove? He cannot prove that he has not since been drunk in charge of a motor car, because he is not allowed to be in charge of a motor car. Is he to come back and bring the evidence of his fellow-citizens, of his wife, or the local publican, to say that he has been sober since that date? That seems to me to be a very ridiculous state of affairs, especially in view of the fact that, after all, drunkenness is an offence which it is extremely difficult to prove. The border-line between insobriety and sobriety is a very narrow one. Very often it is largely a question of opinion, and to make this heavy penalty for this indeterminate offence on the part of one particular class of people who are earning their living in one particular class of way seems to me to be a very dangerous thing to do.
For all these reasons, and at the risk of being held up outside as a defender of drunken motorists, at the risk of the outpouring of the vials of wrath which
would no doubt be poured upon my head by certain hon. Members if they were here, such as the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Scrymgeour) and the Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor)—at the risk of those vials of non-alcoholic wrath being poured upon my head, I must make an emphatic protest against this provision being inserted in the Bill at the last moment.

Sir HENRY CAUTLEY: I should like to reinforce what has fallen from the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Sir F. Meyer), and I should like to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department why it is that this reactionary departure in our criminal law has been made. It, is quite true that in olden times we used to find minimum sentences, and in some classes of cases these were so heavy that juries ceased to convict. I believe that, under the direction of learned Judges, although the offence was practically conclusively proved, they were, in view of the fact that the penalty was so severe. advised to disregard certain parts of the evidence, and find the person only guilty of attempting to commit the offence. The class of legislation which inflicted minimum sentences has been virtually abandoned and upset, and full discretion has been left to the Courts that administer justice.
That has been found to be by far the most valuable and suitable way of administering justice, because offences of every kind, whatever they are, may vary so much in degree that in almost every class of case you will find mere border-line cases, where the very smallest penalty is sufficient to meet the justice of the case. Here, I understand, that in any case which comes before the Court, however extenuating the circumstances may be, the Court is bound to deprive the defaulting person of his licence for 12 months. I say that that will inevitably have the effect that in many cases the Justices will not convict. It seems to me to be an absolutely new thing that has been put into the Bill by the other House. The Home Office have sought to amend it, not by making it, weaker, but, as I understand it, by making it stronger, and I do not see why the Home Office are taking this course.

Captain GARRO-JONES: I hope the Under-Secretary will pay no attention to the arguments of the hon. and learned Member for East Grinstead (Sir H. Cautley) or of the hon. Member for (heat Yarmouth (Sir F. Meyer). There is no doubt about the feeling in the country. One thing upon which the public are determined is that a stop shall be put on these drunken drivers. It is an evil which has been growing. Statistics show that the convictions have been increasing day by day. Those who are making a plea on behalf of professional drivers surely forget the fact that professional drivers are able to inflict much greater damage and injury, and even loss of life, even than private drivers, in the circumstances in which they drive. An omnibus driver, for instance, sometimes has as many as 50 passengers on his omnibus, and, though we should have every sympathy with the omnibus driver it he were convicted when he was not actually drunk, I think we must allow the ordinary safeguards of the law to look after him in that case.
I certainly think that this is quite a serious offence in the case of a private driver who is convicted of being drunk while in charge of a car, but the immediate effect is liable to be far worse in the cast; of the professional driver, and, although the punishment may be more severe upon him, I think it is right that all those who drive omnibuses, taxi-cabs, and so on, should know that if they take too much alcohol they are liable to be thus punished. Some people say that taking any alcohol is quite sufficient in the case of a person who is driving a car, and I myself should be in accord with that view. I have made a few experiments on the matter
myself—[Laughter.]— I do not mean in the sense in which hon. Members have taken it, but I mean that a man who has had just one or two drinks becomes less precise in his driving than the man who has not taken any at all, and, when vehicles are passing each other at the rate of 30 miles an hour, where even a foot or nine inches makes all the difference in the world, the man who has taken a double whisky and soda stands much less chance, in conditions of roughness of road or other like circumstances, of getting by. Alcohol has two effects—it unwarrantably increases the self-confidence of the driver, and at the same time it gives him less control over
his vehicle. I hope that the strictest penalties will always be enforced, both in the case of professional and private car drivers convicted of drunkenness while being in charge of cars.

Mr. MARCH: We had some discussion on this Clause when the Bill came before the House for Third Heading, and also during the Committee stage. We were able to get taken out of the Clause the part that is in the Motor Car Act, and we thought that that was the right thing to do, but we think the Lords Amendment, so far as I could learn from what the Solicitor-General said, is preferable to the one that he read out. Unless I have misunderstood him, it seems to me to make the provision much stronger and harsher even than the present Lords Amendment, and that seems to me to be pretty harsh already. I am not bothering very much about the question of drunkenness of the driver so far as: penalties are concerned. We are desirous that drivers of all descriptions shall be entirely sober when driving care or any mechanically propelled vehicles. Neither do we expect that, at anytime, if men driving commercial vehicles are brought before the Court and are entitled to get off with a fine of £50, that fine will ever be paid; the man would have to go to prison, and would not pay the £50. That. I take it, is not really intended for the ordinary commercial driver, but is intended for some of the people who have very high-powered cars, and who think they are entitled to do as they like, and to go where they like when they like and how they like. If they get convicted they will probably pay the £50 and it will not affect them very much. But in that case it does seem to me that there should be this disqualification from holding their licence to drive, and that 12 months is not too long a period. Then I understood the Solicitor-General to say that they would have an opportunity of coming back to the Court again and asking for a review of their case in accordance with their conduct every three months. That may be a very-good reason for having the Clause there, because the penalties may have been the means of bringing the culprit to book and to have better thought and sense, and if he gave a pledge which was satisfactory to the Court, he might probably be reinstated after three or six months, as the case might be. But I think this Clause
ought to be drawn so as to give the Court a full opportunity of saying the licence shall be endorsed and the man shall not be allowed to drive for 12 months, with the precaution, if need be, that he may come forward and make an application. I prefer the Lords Amendment to the suggestion of the Solicitor-General.

Captain HACKING: It must be borne in mind in the first place that this Amendment was introduced not in the interest of the drunken driver, but in the general interest of the public at large, because it is not only the driver of the car who suffers if he happens to be drunk. It is the general public.

Mr. MARCH: The hon and gallant Gentleman must bear in mind that a man may be drunk in charge of a car and cause no damage to anyone.

Captain HACKING: That is quite likely, and that is why, if a man is once convicted, you should know something about his habits before he is let off, and before he is granted his licence back again. A question was put to me by my hon. and learned Friend with regard to the three months. I think it will be agreed that if it is proved that a man is of drunken habits, he should not be allowed to drive a car, and it is with the idea of proving whether or not he has those habits that he is not expected to come before the Court to ask to have his licence back until he has proved conclusively that during those three months at any rate he has lived a sober life, and that is the only reason why the three months is put in. Only if he has lived a decent life for three months has he the, opportunity, in all probability, of getting his licence back, because it is felt that he will not be himself responsible for putting the general population in a state of danger.

Mr. B. SMITH: Is it the intention of the Government now to remove all Clauses affecting this type of offence from other Acts of Parliament?

Captain HACKING: No, it is not the intention to eliminate anything except what is stated in this Amendment. We are only dealing with this particular Bill.

Mr. SMITH: There are Sections in other Acts which govern the offence of drunkenness.

Amendment made: In page 31, line 19, at the end, insert as new Sub-sections
(2) A person convicted under the preceding Sub-section shall (without prejudice to the power of the Court under Section 4 of the Motor Car Act, 1903, to order a longer period of disqualification) be disqualified for holding a licence for a period of twelve months from the date of the conviction, and any licence held by him shall, so long as the disqualification continues, be of no effect.
 The Court shall cause particulars of any such conviction and of the resulting disqualification to be endorsed upon any licence held by the person convicted, and shall send notice of the conviction to the council by whom the licence was granted.
(3) If a person who under this Section is disqualified for holding a licence applies for or obtains a licence while he is so disqualified, he shall be guilty of an offence under the Motor Car Act. 1903, and any licence so obtained shall be of no effect.
(4) A person who by virtue of a conviction under this Section is disqualified for holding a licence or who, by virtue of an order made under Section 4 of the Motor Car Act, 1903, on his being convicted of an offence, is disqualified for obtaining a licence or whose licence is suspended, may at any lime after the expiration of three months from the date of the conviction, apply from time to time to the Court before which he was convicted to remove the disqualification or suspension, and on any such application the Court may by order, as it thinks proper, having regard to the character of the person convicted and his conduct subsequent to conviction, the nature of the offence, and the other circumstances of the ease, either remove the disqualification or suspension as from such date as may be specified in the order or refuse the application, and if the Court order a disqualification or suspension to be removed the Court shall cause particulars of the order to be endorsed on the licence, if any, held by the applicant.
(5) In this section the expression 'licence' means a licence granted under Section 3 of the Motor Car ACT., 1903."— [Captian Hacking.]

Remaining Lords Amendments agreed to.

Orders of the Day — TITHE BILL.

Order read for Consideration of Lords Amendments

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Guinness): I beg to move, " That the Lords Amendments he now considered."
The House will notice that the Lords have sent this Bill back to us with no
alteration whatever in any important feature. Apart from matters of drafting or definition there are only two Amendments, one to make uniform the dates for the collection of tithe, and the other to correct an error that was made in this House owing to a misunderstanding. Therefore I will, when the time comes, move in each case to accept the Lords Amendments.

Lords Amendments considered accordingly.

Lords Amendment:

In page 2. line 4, at the end, insert:

NEW CLAUSE A.— (Synchronising of dates of payment of tithe rentcharge.)

(l) Where the dates on which tithe rentcharge is payable are dates other than the first day of April and the first day of October, the dates for payment shall be changed to the first day of April and the first day of October (which dates are hereinafter in this Section referred to as the normal half-yearly dates).
(2) For the purpose of effecting such change as aforesaid, nothing in this Section shall affect the liability to make the payment is respect of tithe rentcharge on the half-yearly date occurring next after the passing of this Act on which a payment "would, apart from this Section, have become payable; but on the normal half-yearly date which occurs next after the first-mentioned half-yearly date a payment in respect of the tithe rent-charge proportionate to the time which has elapsed between the first-mentioned half-yearly date and that normal half-yearly data shall become payable, and thereafter payments shall become due on the normal half-yearly dates. 
(3) This Section shall apply to rentcharges payable under the Extraordinary Tithe Redemption Act, 1886, in like manner as it applies to tithe rentcharge. 
(4) This Section shall come into operation on the passing of this Act.

Mr. GUINNESS: I beg to move "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This is in substitution for Clause 9, which in due course we shall move to leave out. The object of Clause 9 was to synchronise the collection of ecclesiastical tithe rent charge. It was pointed out in another place that if two-thirds of the tithe rent charge were collected on 1st April and 1st October of each year it would be more convenient that the remaining third should also be collected on those dates. These dates were discussed in the Standing Committee upstairs, and the Committee came to the
conclusion that the two quarter days I have mentioned were the most suitable, and this Clause merely extends that decision to the whole of the tithe rein-charge.

Subsequent Lords Amendments, down to page 3, line 7, agreed to.

CLAUSE 8.—(Redemption of tithe rentcharge rested in queen Anne's Bounty.)

Lords Amendment: In page 7, line 20, leave out "and expenses of. administration."

Mr. GUINNESS: I beg to move "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment." This is a drafting Amendment.

Mr. RAWLIUNSON: This is a very valuable Amendment, but it is rather more than drafting. Under the Bill as it originally stood there were three series of deductions to be made from the tithe payable to an incumbent. The first was the cost of collection, that is the percentage charged for collecting the tithe, the second was the cost of administration, which of course means a very heavy matter of clerks and so forth, and Queen Anne's Bounty, and thirdly the cost of pooling. An undertaking was given, which one is very grateful for, that the cost of administration should be defrayed by Queen Anne's Bounty, and as it was inconvenient to do that here, that it should be put in in another place. But that is not quite what has been put in. The omission of these words is an improvement, but at a later period they say that when Queen Anne's Bounty choose to delegate the powers of administration, which would include the very expensive procedure of pooling the tithe, and put it into the hands of the local committee, which it is rather intended they should do, a fresh Amendment, of which this forms part, is put in this Bill, and it is said this cost of administration shall not be paid by Queen Anne's Bounty but shall fall upon the incumbent, just as it was before. Therefore the concession that was promised us has really not been carried out by this series of Amendments. The promise was that the only charge to be left to the incumbent was the cost of collection and, of course, the other deductions that were
necessary to be made, and the cost of administration was to be found elsewhere. I think my hon. and learned Friend is raising the same point by an Amendment to the latter part of the Lords Amendment, but I thought it right to raise it now lest it might be thought I was accepting it.

Mr. GUINNESS: I think it might be move convenient to raise this on the late Solicitor-General's Amendment. In this position it is wrong. This was originally dealt with on Clause 4, where the words " expenses of administration " were left out, and the deduction for that particular cost could no longer be made, and this omission is to carry out the undertaking; that the Bill would be examined, and as a matter of drafting all other references to the cost of administration should be left out.

Subsequent Lords Amendments, down to page 12, line 39, agreed to.

CLAUSE 24.—(Definition.)

Lords. Amendment: In page 16, line 33, at the end, insert:
The expression 'costs of collection' in-eludes all costs and expenses incurred by a committee constituted for a collection area in the exercise of any of the powers (whether of collection or management), and of the performance of any of the duties delegated to the committee:
The expression total income in relation to a benefice means the total income arising from the benefice estimated in accordance with the provisions of the Income Tax Acts for the preceding income tax year, but so that where the incumbent of a benefice holds more than one benefice (whether united for ecclesiastical purposes or not so united) it shall mean the sum of the total incomes, estimated as aforesaid, arising from the several benefices."

Sir H. SLESSER: I beg to move as a Amendment to the Lords Amendment, in line 4, to leave out the words " whether of collection or management."

The effect of my Amendment is to reduce the definition of the words "costs of collection" to costs of collection, and nothing else. The position is, that the words
costs of collection…incurred by a committee constituted for a collection area.

as they appear in the Lords Amendment, include not only the costs of collection but the costs of management as well. As
I understand the position, we were given at a certain stage of this Bill what we all realised to be a very valuable concession, for which I hope we were truly grateful. That concession was that the costs of the administration of the Measure should not come out of the funds which would come from the tithe but should be met by the other funds of the Queen Anne's Bounty. So far so good, but when we turn to Clause 10, we find that Queen Anne's Bounty is given power to constitute a committee for each collection area. So far we make no complaint, neither do we complain of the fact that representation is given on these local collection committees to representatives of the incumbents of benefices within, the collection area: but the Clause goes on to provide that
there shall be delegated to the committee all the powers of Queen Anne's Bounty in relation to the collection of tithe rent-charge"—

here come the important words
and such of their powers of management in relation thereto as Queen Anne's Bounty think fit.

The difficulty which arises, after the concession which has been given to the priest, is obvious. We do not know exactly how much of the powers of Queen Anne's Bounty are going to Le delegated to these committees, but we do know that whatever may be the cost to the local committees of the powers of management which may be delegated, they become under the definition which has been put in by the House of Lords, part of the costs of collection, because costs of collection include costs of management. In other words, that means expenses of management which are passed from the Queen Anne's Bounty to the committees.

The concession which the clergy have obtained is that so long as the matter is dealt with directly by Queen Anne's Bounty, the costs of administration of the fund shall not be borne by the clergy but under the Lords Amendment, those costs become part of the burden which is to be borne out of the clergy fund. The liability of the clergy will depend upon an accident whether the fund is administered by Queen Anne's Bounty or administered by the local committees. If it is administered by Queen Anne's Bounty they will not be liable for the costs of administration and manage-
ment; those costs will not fall upon the clergy fund; but if by some accident or by design, as I hope may be the case, a large amount of the work is delegated to the committees, then the costs of administration and management will fall upon the clergy fund, unless my Amendment is accepted. That is the effect of including in the costs of collection the costs of management.

We are not holding a blunderbuss at the Government, because from our experience in these matters we know that it. would probably kick in our direction. But I am appealing to the Government, who have given us the concession that the costs of central administration shall be borne by Queen Anne's Bounty, shall now say that that shall apply just the same when the committees are acting, and not Queen Anne's Bounty. That result can be effected simply by leaving the words " costs of collection " as they stand in the Lords Amendment, and leaving out the dubious words " whether of collection or management." I cannot see why we should necessarily include in the costs of collection the costs of management. Several Amendments have been moved in the last few minutes to exclude the costs of administration of Queen Anne's Bounty when dealing with the fund, and it is not unreasonable to ask that when a committee is dealing with the matter, and not Queen Anne's Bounty, that Queen Anne's Bounty should also bear the costs of collection.

Mr. GUINNESS: The object of the hon. and learned Member's Amendment is that Queen Anne's Bounty should definitely be charged with the obligation of bearing the cost of local management. I gladly recognise that Queen Anne's Bounty have made a valuable concession in bearing the costs .of central management, but I am afraid we cannot reasonably ask them to go further. We put these words in to make it quite clear that the cost of these local committees under Clause 10 are to be met out of the tithe rent charge, and are not to be reckoned as part of the central costs of management which, by Queen Anne's Bounty's own concession, are to be paid out of their funds. I think the general application of these costs of management has been rather exaggerated by the hon. and learned Member, because under
Clause 10 he will see that these are only costs of
collection of tithe rent charge and such of their powers of management in relation thereto
as Queen Anne's Bounty shall think fit to delegate to the local committees. Therefore, it is only management in connection with the costs of collection, and not the costs of management generally. The cost of the distribution of the fund, the redemption of the fund or the investment of the fund—none of these functions apart from the actual cost of managing the collection would be thrown upon the local committee. The hon. and learned Member has welcomed the concession on the part of Queen Anne's Bounty.

Sir H. SLESSER: Hear, hear.

Mr. GUINNESS: Many of us have felt, as the hon. Member has felt, that it was desirable to get rid of any suspicion of a new bureaucracy being set up. After that attitude, I think it is somewhat unreasonable to ask that Queen Anne's Bounty, having made that concession, should be asked to pay for the cost of local administration. They have not got funds available for this heavy charge, and I do not think it would be in any way reasonable or just to ask them to go further.

Mr. RAWLINSON: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for what he. has said. I do not think he has quite grasped the. seriousness of this matter for the clergy. As he has just said, it will be a heavy cost, and to poor clergymen it is a very serious matter. The clergyman pays for the cost of collection, which may go up to 3, 4 or 5 per cent., but by this Bill he will have to pay something more, and the poor clergyman feels that very seriously. My right hon. Friend has said, and I hope he is right in saying it, that there is no power to delegate any part of the management to the local committees. I should gather that he got that view from the suggestion of one of the Law Officers, namely, the Solicitor-General, that there is no power in Queen Anne's Bounty to delegate to the local committees any power of management except management in connection with collection.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL indicated assent

Mr. RAWLINSON: I gather that my hon. and learned Friend assents to that.
If that be so, it removes one of my great grievances. The heavy cost of administration will be that of the pool which has been arranged. The question of pooling the tithe will be a very heavy matter in regard to cost, and I want it to be made perfectly clear that the costs of administering the pool, that is, dividing the monies amongst these various people throughout England or throughout the particular districts, and levelling down the tithe which is payable to each particular person, cannot be delegated to the local committees; and that the costs of administering that, which will represent a very heavy item, will not be put upon the parson. I hope the House will see the enormous importance of this point.
When we were discussing this matter before, the important point was that the tithe was to be pooled, so that a person who got good tithe and got his full £100 should not get that, but that it should be pooled with that of his neighbour, who, perhaps, only got £60 of his tithe. The calculations in regard to that are very complicated, and must be very expensive to carry out. These are costs of administration and not costs of collection. It is these costs which I am frightened about, and it was these costs, which I was afraid might come upon the clergy, which made me support the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend. If they were to fall upon the clergy it would be a very serious matter. If the Solicitor-General tells me that that is not so, I shall be perfectly content to ask my hon. and learned Friend to withdraw his Amendment.

Major BIRCHALL: I think from what has been said that it will not be thought in any way that Queen Anne's Bounty has gone back on the very valuable concession which it made in connection with the administration of those funds. The position is perfectly clear. Queen Anne's Bounty has undertaken to pay all the administrative expenses in connection with the funds which are incurred at headquarters. That is to say, that when once the funds are collected and paid into Queen Anne's Bounty, all the, expenses of investment, of redemption, paving over in connection with rates, etc., will be incurred and paid by Queen
Anne's Bounty, and will not be a charge upon the tithe owner. The expenses before the money is received by Queen Anne's Bounty, that is to say, expenses incurred by the local collecting committees should be borne by those committees.
With respect to the addition of the words "or management," as far as I understand them, they are not intended in any way to add to what was previously intended by the word "collection." It has been held that there may be some small expenses, but I think they will be very small, apart from the actual collection, in connection with the provision of maps and the carrying out of survey, and matters of that sort, which are required to bring the collection into proper order at the start. These expenses are covered by the words " or management." I am sure that the Bill does not in any way contemplate that there should be the delegation of additional administrative powers to the local committees, and doss not in any way relieve Queen Anne's Bounty of the concession which that Bounty has already made. I hope the matter has been made perfectly clear as between the central and local administration, that the central expenses will be defrayed by Queen Anne's Bounty, while the whole costs of collection locally, including, if so arranged, the cost of pooling these collections locally, will be borne locally and will be a charge upon the fund.

Mr. GUINNESS: I agree with the hon. and gallant Member's explanation of Clause 11. The local committees will be responsible for the cost of their own administration; they will pay the expenses of their own local pool. They will, however, be relieved of all costs in connection with the investment and management of the balances which they send up to London.

Mr. RAWLINSON: I understand, then, that the main expense, the cost of pooling, is to fall entirely on the clergymen, and not on Queen Anne's Bounty.

Amendment to the Lords Amendment, by leave, withdrawn

Remaining Lords Amendments agreed to.

Orders of the Day — SANDWICH PORT AND HAVEN BILL

Order read for consideration of Lords Amendments.

Motion made, and Question, "That the Lords Amendments be now considered," put, and agreed to.—[Mr. R. McNeill.]

Lords Amendments considered accordingly.

CLAUSE 8.—(Certain powers of the corporation vested in the Commissioners.)

Lords Amendment: In page 5, line 6, leave out the word "October" and insert the word "January."

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Ronald McNeill): I beg to move, " That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
I would explain that this Amendment and three subsequent Amendments have been made necessary owing to the delay in the. Bill passing the House of Lords. It was hoped that the Bill might have passed through Parliament before the Adjournment for the Summer Recess, but that not having been possible, it has been necessary to postpone the operative dates, that is to say, to change October to January. We hope that the Bill will come into force in January, and that will throw forward January to April as the date when the new Commissioners for the management of this port shall come into office and shall begin to administer the port and levy the necessary rates and duties.

Subsequent Lords Amendments, down to page 6, line 43, agreed to.

CLAUSE 43.— (Level crossings.)

Lords Amendment: In page 21, line 6, after Subsection (2), insert a new Subsection:
(3) Notwithstanding anything in the fore-going provisions of this Section, the County Council may, at any time, give to the Secretary of State notice in writing of their intention to erect a bridge to carry the said main road over any one of the level crossings aforesaid. The Secretary of State may, within three months after receipt of the notice, give to the county council a written notice requiring that the intended bridge shall ho built on a site other than the site of the level crossing which the bridge is intended to replace, but if the Secretary of State fails within the said three months to give the notice, he shall
be deemed to have consented to the construction of the bridge on the site of the existing level crossing. The county council shall construct the bridge on the site of the crossing or on the site required by the Secretary of State to be substituted therefor, and, on such bridge being completed, the level crossing for which it is substituted shall forthwith be taken up by the Secretary of State and the site thereof shall be put into proper condition to the satisfaction of the county council.

Mr. McNEILL: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
I would like to explain this Amendment and that which follows, each of which refers to a new sub-section put in in another place. Negotiations took place with the Kent County Council with reference to the way in which certain level crossings were to be dealt with. It was necessary, of course, to safeguard the rights of the administration of the county council with regard to these level crossings. The provisions are that the county council, as they may think necessary, shall construct bridges to carry the roads over existing level crossings so as to get rid of the objectionable feature of a crossing at the road level. The first Amendment is merely to give power, in the event of a bridge being made, to shift the position of the existing level crossing in case it may be found convenient to make a bridge not in exactly the spot of the present crossing. There can be no objection to the Amendment.

Lords Amendment: In page 21, line 17, leave out Sub-section (4), and insert a new Sub-section:
(1) Not with standing anything in the foregoing provisions of this Section, if at any time the county council give to any purchaser from the Secretary of State the notice referred to in Sub-section (3) of this Section the following provisions shall have effect,

(i) The said purchaser shall convey free of cost to the county council so much of the land formerly the property of the Secretary of State abutting on cither side of the said main road as shall be reasonably necessary for the construction thereon of embankments of such width as will, with the present width of the road, be sufficient to carry a road 35 feet wide between the fences thereof, and with -a gradient of not more than one foot in 30 feet, and any question as to the amount of land necessary under this paragraph shall in default of agreement be referred to the arbitration of an
2255
engineer appointed by the Minister, and the award of that engineer shall be final and conclusive;
(ii) The said purchaser shall on the completion of such bridge and the approaches thereto pay to the county council towards the cost of the construction thereof the sum of five thousand pounds.

Mr. McNEILL: I beg to move, "That the House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This Amendment is on the same lines as that which I have just explained. It is merely to enable the county council to make the bridges over these crossings and to require the Government or any purchaser from the Government to convey the necessary land and embankment, and in the case of any purchaser to make a subscription of £5,000 towards the cost of each bridge that may be made, so that the whole expense of it shall not fall upon the county council. That has been arranged after considerable negotiations with the county council, who were rather dissatisfied with the original Bill. They have been met in that respect, and they withdrew their provisional opposition in the House of Lords. Complete agreement was arrived at and this new Sub section inserted in the Bill.

MINES (WORKING FACILITIES AND SUPPORT) BILL [Lords.]

Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.

Mr. SPEAKER: A Royal Commission has been appointed for six o'clock. I propose, unless a Message came from the other House at an earlier time, to leave the Chair until that hour. In any event, I will cause the bells to be rung five minutes before I resume the. Chair.

Sitting suspended at Five Minutes before Three of the Clock.

Mr. SPEAKER resumed the Chair at Twenty-five Minutes before Four o'Clock.

Orders of the Day — MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

Criminal Justice Bill,—That they do not insist on their Amendment to the Criminal Justice Bill to which this House
hath disagreed, and agree to the Amendment made by this House in lien thereof. Rating and Valuation Bill,—That they do not insist on their Amendment to the Rating and Valuation Bill to which this House hath disagreed, and agree to the Amendment made by this House in lieu thereof.

Orders of the Day — ROYAL ASSENT.

Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.

The House went, and having returned.

Mr. SPEAKER: (standing in the Clerk's place, at the Table)
I have to acquaint the House that the House has been to the House of Peers, where a Commission, under the Great Seal, was read, authorising the Royal Assent to

1.Appropriation (No. 2) Act, 1925.
2.Safeguarding of Industries (Customs Duties) Act, 1625.
3.Mining Industry (Welfare Fund) Act, 1925.
4.Circuit Courts and Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1925.
5.Roads and Streets in Police Burghs (Scotland) Act. 1925.
6.Government of India (Civil Services) Act, 1925.
7.Workmen's Compensation Act, 1925.
8.Land Settlement (Facilities) Amendment Act, 1925.
9.Criminal Justice Act, 1925.
10.Tithe Act, 1925.
11.Coastguard Act, 1925.
12.Education (Scotland) Act, 1925. 
13.Rating and Valuation Art. 1925.
14.Mines (Working Facilities and Support) Act, 1925.
15. Sandwich Port and Haven Act, 1925.
16.Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Bournemouth Order) Act, 1925.
17.Aberdeen Corporation Order Confirmation Act, 1925.
18.Baldovan Institution for Treatment and Education of Defectives Order Confirmation Act, 1925.
19.Glasgow Boundaries Act, 1925.
20.Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire, and Huntingdonshire Electricity Act, 1925.

And to the following Measure passed under the Provisions of the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919:

Diocesan Boards of Finance Measure, 1925.

PROROGATION.

HIS MAJESTY'S MOST GRACIOUS SPEECH.

Mr. SPEAKER: I have further to acquaint the House that the Lord High Chancellor, being one of the High Commissioners, delivered His Majesty's Most Gracious Speech to both Houses of Parliament in pursuance of His Majesty's Command as followeth:

My Lords and Members of the House of Commons,

The grievous loss which I and, My family have sustained by the death of My beloved Mother is first in My thought. It has been a solace to Mr. in My grief to have received from all conditions and classes, from all parts of My dominions and from all foreign countries, the touching assurances of their deep sympathy in My sorrow and the expression of their affectionate regard fur One who was enthroned in the fore of My people.

I was happy to welcome home. My Son. the Prince of Wales, on his recent return from his visit to South Africa, West Africa and South America. I hate been deeply touched by the account which he has given Me of the, warm welcome, very where accorded him, and I am proud to think that his visit has served to deepen the affection which. unites My people, and to strengthen the. bonds which link this country with the people of South America.

My relations with Foreign Powers continue to be friendly.

It was a source of great satisfaction to Me to welcome in London the distinguished Plenipotentiaries of Germany, Belgium, France, Italy, Poland and Czechoslovakia, who, on the 1st December, signed the diplomatic instruments initialled at Locarno on the 16th October.

It is My belief and My earnest hope-that these instruments, by giving security to the peoples immediately concerned, will prove to be not only the foundation of a true peace between
them but the beginning of a friendly co-operation which cannot fail to benefit the whole world.

I rejoice at the part which My Government was able to play in the negotiations leading up to this happy event.

I have given My assent to a Bill for the Confirmation of an Agreement reached between My Ministers and the Governments of the Irish Free State and Northern, Ireland, to amend and supplement the Articles of Agreement of the 6th December, 1921. It is my heartfelt prayer that this measure may advance co-operation and strengthen goodwill in Ireland.

The British Empire. Exhibition at Wembley has now come to a close, and I feel that I should take this opportunity of expressing My gratitude to all those throughout My Empire who have co-operated in this great enterprise; I am, sure that the increased knowledge which it has brought of the resources and activities of My people will have lasting and beneficial results.

Further preferences on goods imported into this country from, other parts of the Empire have been accorded by legislation, and other measures for the development of Empire. Trade are receiving the close consideration of My Government.

An Act has been passed to give effect to certain provisions contained in the Treaty of Commerce and Navigation with Germany, and ratifications of that Treaty have since been exchanged.

Members of the House of Commons,

I thank you for the provision you have made for the public service.

My Lords and Members of the House of Commons,

Progressive depression in the coal trade led, at the end of July, to a grave economic crisis, which threatened to result in a disastrous industrial conflict. The danger was averted by the decision
to afford temporary financial assistance to the industry. This has made it possible to conduct, under My Commission, a full and impartial inquiry into the economic position of the industry. I am following the course of the inquiry with anxious interest, and I am hopeful that the task of My Commissioners will be lightened by ungrudging and single-hearted effort on the part of all concerned to find a solution for the problems of this great and vital industry.

By the passing of the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act a further important stage has been reached in the process whereby the resources of the State are made available for the encouragement of thrift and self-reliance. Provision has thus been made, through insurance, against those risks which have been a source of anxiety and apprehension to so many of My people.

An Act has been passed to simplify the law of rating, to provide for greater uniformity in valuation, and to improve the local administration of these services in England and Wales.

Acts have been passed for consolidating the laws relating to workmen's compensation in cases of accident, and to real property and conveyancing, and also for consolidating the Judicature Acts and for simplifying and amending the procedure in criminal cases.

During the past year there has been a great increase in the number of houses built in England and Wales, and I hope that this improvement, so important to the health and well-being of My people, may continue. The housing position still gives cause for concern in Scotland, where special measures have, however, been taken by My Ministers.

Encouragement has been given to the establishment of the sugar beet industry in this country by an Act providing
for a Government subsidy during a period of 10 years.

An Act has also been passed to amend the law relating to tithe rentcharge and the payment of rates thereon.

In pursuance of the policy announced at the opening of the Session, measures have been enacted for safeguarding by means of Customs duties certain industries which have been proved after inquiry to be suffering from unemployment due to exceptional foreign competition of an unfair nature.

My assent has also been given to an Act establishing a permanent system of superannuation for teacher, to the Church of Scotland (Property and Endowments) Act, and to a measure providing for the institution of a Scottish National Library.

In bidding you farewell I pray that the blessing of Almighty God may rest upon your labours.

Then a Commission for Proroguing the Parliament was read in the House of Lords.

After which The LORD CHANCELLOR said:

MY LORDS AND MEMBERS,—By virtue oil His Majesty's Commission under the Great Seal, to us and other Lords directed, and now read, we do, in His Majesty's Name and in obedience to His Majesty's Commands. Prorogue this Parliament to Tuesday, the second day of February, One thousand nine hundred and twenty-six, to be then here holden: and this Parliament is accordingly Prorogued until Tuesday, the second day of February, One thousand nine hundred and twenty six.

End of the First Session (opened Tuesday, 2nd December, 1924) of the Thirty-fourth Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, in the Sixteenth year of the Reign of His Majesty King George the Fifth.